The recent loss of the Hollywood Center Motel on Sunset Blvd due to “demolition by neglect” leads back to a council district office disengaged from the public. Every response by the Department of Building and Safety (LADBS), by the Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and by the Police (LAPD), was in reaction to public complaints. If not for the expanded news coverage drawing media attention, council district staff acted as if it were business as usual.

We also need to take a hard stance against illegal construction. A new tenant at the former Pig n’ Whistle Café on Hollywood Blvd wantonly destroyed historic building tile, gutted and white-washed the interior, and modified the historic frontage, all without permits. The response by LADBS inspectors was slow, allowing the illegal work to continue unabated. When stopped, the mitigation required by the Office of Historic Resource (OHR) was trivial.

In response to this event, I prepared a list of actions and measures that the city could take to deter illegal and unpermitted construction work, improve LADBS response to public complaints, and improve historic building resource oversight. My list was presented to the various officials in charge, and their response was the typical “thanks” followed by, I assume, placement in the round file.

So, I now offer these same actions and measures to the new candidates in hope that one of them will step up, take charge, and take action.

ILLEGAL & UNPERMITTED CONSTRUCTION WORK

Council File 17-0226, adopted 13 June 2018, directed City Planning to report on the differences between a remodel and a demolition project per current code, provide ways to improve notification requirements to neighbors, and identify all applicable building loopholes in the code that may negatively impact neighbors.

City Planning was also instructed to address the following Best Practices for Demolition:

a) timely and adequate notification to neighboring properties;
b) dust mitigation;
c) noise mitigation;
d) construction street parking; and
e) other impacts and complaints received by the City.

To date, no such plan or report has been prepared in compliance with Council directive. The LADBS submitted a report to the PLUM Committee in November 2020 that only addressed the current penalties imposed on unpermitted remodels, additions, and the demolition of historic buildings and structures. While the report proposed an increase in fines and penalties, the Council has taken no further action.

We need much stronger consequences for illegal construction work, regardless of the building’s historic status. Unpermitted work is illegal and should have serious consequences for both the project applicant who hires unlicensed contractors and for licensed contractors who work without permits.

Adopt Stronger Civil Penalties

The LADBS report (provide link) presents the then current fee structure for non-compliance and code violation inspections. Existing fees are inadequate in deterring illegal work because the fees only cover the recovery of LADBS costs. The city should impose major civil penalties so that no building owner or developer benefits from illegal construction or demolition.

Examples of civil penalties levied by other cities include:

• The City of San Antonio fine for unpermitted demolition is 90 percent of the fair market value of the cost of replacement or repair of such building, object, or structure.

• The City of New York Landmarks Preservation Law imposes a civil penalty for unpermitted demolition up to the fair market value of the improvement parcel, with or without improvement.

• The City of Ventura assesses a fine equivalent to the greater of a) the appraised value of the building before demolition minus the appraised value after demolition, or b) $10,000.

Pursue Non-Monetary Penalties

Per the LADBS report, the city can place a five-year moratorium on issuing permits for sites where demolition or relocation work has been done without permits. Moratoriums have been imposed in the past, primarily in situations involving the unpermitted demolition or alteration of historically significant buildings.

However, site-specific moratoriums against illegal construction tend to be ineffective; they do not present enough of a deterrent. An owner may gain financially due to the freeze on project spending while the value of the land continues to increase.

Additionally, in the case of a historic building, the illegal act may free up the land for a variety of unrestricted uses, making it more valuable. The moratorium does not stop the owner from doing this again elsewhere. And while the site sits vacant, it is the neighbors who suffer most.

Rather than a five-year moratorium on the site, LADBS should be authorized to prohibit the owner and contractor from filing any construction permit for projects within the city. Such restrictions are currently in place for companies who do business with the city and are found guilty of violating financial laws. The penalty for illegal work needs to be severe, or the practice will continue unabated.

Another potential non-monetary penalty is loss of the contractors’ license. The California Contractors State License Board (CSLB) places a very high priority on the enforcement of building permit violations. Contractors who violate the law are subject to disciplinary action, the assessment of civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation, an order of correction to pay permit fees and any assessed penalty imposed by the local building department, and suspension or revocation of their license.

Based on my contact with LADBS, they are not aware of any permit violation or discovery of unlicensed work that results in CSLB notification. LADBS only tracks how many referrals they make to an outside agency in response to a public complaint. They do not initiate outside contact in response to a site investigation.

CSLB notification should be automatic since unpermitted and/or unlicensed work is a crime. LADBS bears responsibility in this matter since they are the inspection arm of City Planning. LADBS inspectors have the information needed to file a complaint, but the information remains internal. The act of notification places no additional burden on LADBS since any follow-up is the responsibility of CSLB.

LADBS FAILURE TO RESPOND

The listing of incorrect addresses in permit files has been an ongoing issue for many years. The project site address used by City Planning and LADBS can differ, leading to confusion and slow response. Complaints regarding illegal construction at the Pig ‘n Whistle Café were initially ignored because the LADBS assumed that the work was part of the Egyptian Theater project.

Compounding the issue, City Planning relies upon their official web-based mapping tool ZIMAS (Zone Information and Map Access System) for accessing official property data, zoning designations, and planning documents. However, address data provided by ZIMAS is not official. To obtain official address data, you need to access the web-based mapping tool NavigateLA maintained by the Bureau of Engineering.

Because the internal department systems, processes, and procedures with City Planning and LADBS are so opaque, one cannot offer solutions but only point out the problems. City Council should instruct City Planning and LADBS to conduct a review as to how these problems can be avoided in the future.

INADEQUATE OHR REVIEW AND OVERSIGHT

Most residential projects are ruled by City Planning to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The exemption from CEQA eliminates the public review of project documents. A CEQA exemption cannot be applied to a project that impacts a designated historic resource.

For a project that impacts a historic building, the Office of Historic Resources (OHR) requires the applicant to submit an historic assessment report. The report must be prepared under the direction of a qualified individual. While the applicant pays for the report, the contracted person or company serves OHR who is the actual client and is there to represent the public interest.

All too often, OHR fails to acknowledge their role as client and representative. The submitted report is accepted at face value with little or no comment. With the Pig n’ Whistle case, in response to illegal work, two historic assessment reports were prepared. The second report was requested by OHR because they were not satisfied with the grammar of the first report. All of the OHR comments focused on form rather than substance.

OHR overlooked the fact that neither report complied with the scope of work. The scope of work is part of the legal contract that specifies what the consultant must provide in order to complete the project and be paid. In ignoring the scope of work, neither report addressed the full extent of illegal work that occurred within the building.

Worse, the reports contained factual errors as to site history and to renovations, both legal and illegal. Some of the illegal work was clearly shown in the photos but not called out as such. Rather than require the consultant to comply with the scope of work and correct the errors, OHR signed off on the second report as final. OHR then issued to the building owner a token list of mitigation measures.

Another example of inadequate review by OHR is from the Sears Building on Santa Monica Blvd. The historic assessment report conducted a drive-by windshield survey and found the building to not warrant preservation. The report did not reference a prior report from 2006 that found a windshield survey to be inadequate because character-defining features could be present under the modern façade. OHR approved the report, approved demolition, and guess what was found when the facade was removed?

None of this is to say that the professional historian must accept the findings of a prior report unconditionally, but there is a professional obligation to present as complete and factual an assessment as possible. If two or more reports conflict, the approach taken should be to clearly call out the conflict and provide a solid basis in support of one’s findings. In hiding the conflict, what should be an unbiased assessment becomes a political tool.

To better serve OHR and the public, the historic assessment review process needs to be more transparent. Potential improvements include:

• OHR should create a detailed checklist for use in conducting their review of the historic assessment report. The report should include:

  • A clear and detailed timeline of the site history based on permit review with all gaps in building history clearly noted.

  • A report on the steps taken to fill in all identified gaps.

  • A review of prior reports and studies to determine how their findings either support or conflict with new information and research.

  • The method of site investigation employed.

  • The adequacy of response to comments (final report).

• All OHR comments should be submitted to the consultant in writing, with all comments addressed in the final report, or as an addendum to the draft report. The three documents (draft report, comments, and final report or addendum to draft) must be part of the Council file subject to public discovery.

• Any interim meeting(s) with the project applicant and the historian to discuss the report must be documented and made part of the Council file.

• Since OHR has limited staff, the creation of an independent peer review panel should be considered. OHR should reach out to the neighborhood councils and preservation groups within the city for their professional expertise.

• As the city maintains a list of qualified consultants for performing historic assessments, the city needs to adopt measures to ensure that the list undergoes periodic review. Clear and well-defined measures should be included to address the grounds for delisting a consultant.

IN CLOSING

I see the problems created by demolition by neglect and by illegal construction to be two sides of the same coin. The city fails the public when it passes a law but then takes no action to enforce the law. City Planning fails the public when they complain about their limited resources but take no action to utilize resources outside the department. Both of these issues are readily addressable, but only if we elect leaders who care about these matters.

Share

Leave a comment

If you have an active interest in historic preservation, then you need to pay attention to all of the changes underway. The residents of Glendale were recently blind-sided in their efforts to save their Sears building from demolition. While the Glendale City Council supported the public and rejected the proposed project, they had to back-pedal and rescind their no vote due to the threat of lawsuit by the State.

The new State law that came into play in the Glendale case is AB 130, a budget trailer bill that was passed 1 July 2025. My initial read of the bill had me bewildered because it mostly deals with new regulations regarding homeowner associations and it removes the sunset provisions from many housing laws. But, buried within AB 130 is a special exemption for in-fill housing projects that I expect will have an adverse impact on historic preservation.

An in-fill housing project refers to the construction of new housing on previously unused or underutilized land located within the developed areas of the city. From the vantage point of high-density housing, all other buildings sit on underutilized land. Theaters, churches, office buildings, low-density housing, all are underutilized with reference to high-density housing, and all are therefore subject to demolition.

With the passage of AB 130, the effort to protect a historic building against demolition for an in-fill housing project has been shut off. You can plead all you want to City Hall, but they will tell you that their hands are tied. If you care about preservation, and you want to be effective, you need to be proactive and aware that the game has changed. Let’s get into the rules.

THE OLD RULES

Back in 2018, the City Council passed an ordinance (CF 18-0406) requiring building owners to post notice when they file for a demolition permit. The ordinance requires public notice to be posted at the building site in an accessible location for a minimum of 30 days. The ordinance has undergone one major revision and in June 2024 the City Council was seeking ways to improve the ordinance.

At the same time as posting notice, the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety (LADBS) conducts a pre-demolition site inspection to confirm that utilities are disconnected and the sewer line is capped. The demolition permit may be issued after the public notice and inspection requirements are satisfied (i.e., they are “cleared” in the LADBS system).

The purpose of posting notice is to provide a warning call to members of the public who may be interested in nominating the building for historic designation. The 30-day period is intended to allow time for the preparation of an HCM application for submission to the Office of Historic Resources (OHR).

Once the application is officially accepted by OHR for consideration, LADBS is notified to place a hold on the issuance of the demolition permit (or to revoke the permit if already issued). From this point forward, the application follows the normal course of review and approval or rejection by the Cultural Heritage Commission and City Council.

While my write up follows existing city law, city law often takes years to catch up with the laws enacted by the State. An old rule of thumb was that it took 10 years for a State law to trickle down and be adopted at the local level. With the need for housing classified as an emergency, any delay in adoption has been reduced to a matter of months. Hence, the purpose of the city law to provide notice leading to potential historic designation and protection no longer applies for in-fill housing projects.

THE NEW RULES

The new law, AB 130, provides an exemption from CEQA for in-fill housing projects that meet certain requirements per Section 21080.66 of the Public Resources Code. Prior law provided exemptions too, but the requirements were more stringent and more complex.

The most used exemption was the Class 32 Categorical Exemption. The exemption applies to infill housing projects on sites under 5 acres within city limits, surrounded by urban uses, that meet various environmental and planning conditions. To receive an exemption, City Planning must prepare an initial assessment report supporting the exemption. And, in accordance with CEQA, there are requirements for public hearings, appeal rights, and approval by City Council.

With the AB 130 exemption, there is no need for an initial assessment report, hearing, period for appeal, nor City Council vote. As long as the project complies with AB 130, the project is exempt from CEQA and any of its requirements. Projects that call for the demolition of a building listed on a national, state, or local register prior to the submission of the preliminary application are not eligible for the exemption.

Wait, stop, please go back and reread that last sentence. Repeat this phrase over and over until it fully sinks in:

In simple terms, if a potentially historic building is not designated as historic before an owner files a preliminary application for an in-fill housing project, you no longer have the right to seek historic designation of the building. The notice of demolition no longer serves as a trigger or warning to act. AB 130 moves the point of response forward in time, from the posted demolition notice to submittal of the preliminary application.

And it gets worse. The building must be listed on the historic register, not just nominated. The listing process can take months to complete since it involves two CHC hearings and a site walk, a hearing by the Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) committee, and a hearing by City Council.

To avoid potential conflicts, OHR is now refusing to accept HCM nominations if a housing project application has been filed for the address. The CHC, in their public hearings, routinely berate people for filing an HCM nomination as a way to delay or defer a construction project. The public is berated by the same organization that once promoted the practice that people are now trying to follow.

It is unclear to me what will happen if an owner files a preliminary project application while an HCM nomination is pending. Will City Planning and the CHC continue to process both the application and nomination concurrently? Is it a race to the finish line or is the HCM nomination dead upon the filing of the preliminary application? Only time will tell as to which way this plays out.

CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

The outcome in Glendale is likely to become more and more common with the passage of AB 130. In response, the preservation community needs to adapt to a changing set of rules.

Sadly, many of the organizations and neighborhood councils that are usually the ones enlightening the public fail to see the writing on the wall. They remain married to the old rules, switching into sudden panic when faced by a demolition notice.

This panic response is highly destructive. Nominations have to be quickly prepared, taxing the limits of the few members qualified to prepare such a nomination. Other projects are placed on hold. New members quickly lose interest since they are not engaged in the process; the people with the knowledge have no time available to show those with interest “the ropes.”

Ironically, losing a few potentially historic buildings may be a small price to pay if it results in the community waking up to the new reality. There are hundreds, if not thousands of buildings in Los Angeles worthy of local designation.

The list of approved HCMs is dominated by architects and architecture. The list has recently started to expand to include buildings and sites of cultural significance. If you have an interest in expanding the list, then I suggest you check out the citywide historic context statements published by Survey LA. Perhaps you know of a site not identified in a report. It just might be a great HCM designation to pursue!

In the next few weeks, I’ll be posting about my efforts to set the foundation for a community led project to expand the number of HCM designations in the Hollywood area. Its time to take a more proactive approach to historic preservation rather than always being reactive. I hope this brief post inspires you to think about how you can be more proactive in your community. And, as always, I welcome your feedback, comments and suggestions.

Share

Leave a comment

There’s another relic from our past now threatened by demolition. From central Hollywood, and the sadly disappointing limited designation of the mid-century pole sign and breeze block wall that sits in front of the Hollywood Center Motel, to the south end of the Arts District in downtown Los Angeles, a demolition notice has been posted on the Rendon Hotel. This threat appeared suddenly, without warning, and without approval from the city council. But first, some background information.

The Proposed Project

The Rendon Hotel is a three-story building that sits at the NorthWest corner of East 7^th St and South Santa Fe Ave (2053–2059 East 7th St), in the Arts District. The building, except for its basement, is slated for demolition and replacement with a new 11-story hotel that will provide 123 guest rooms and slightly less than 13,000 square feet of commercial space. The commercial space includes an art gallery, artist studios, a restaurant, and bar.

The Existing Building

The existing three-story building was constructed in 1914 as a hotel, with 44 rooms including communal bathrooms and 4 commercial storefronts on the ground floor. An early directory listing from 1916 shows the building operating as the Colby Hotel with commercial tenants including Pelton & Nelson, a saloon, J.S. Alexander, a cigar and tobacco shop, a cafeteria owned by Mrs. Ida J. Montgomery, and an automobile accessories shop owned by R. S. Shrader.

The architect Frank M. Tyler designed the building in the style of Beaux Arts Classicism. Mr. Tyler is recognized in the field of architecture at a local level as a master architect of the Arts and Craft Movement in Los Angeles. The historic assessment reports that the building is a basic example of Beaux Arts Classicism that does not now exhibit quality of design through distinctive features, some of which were removed over the years.

What’s the Issue?

The Rendon Hotel development project was originally filed with City Planning on 15 November 2017 with final City Council approval on 6 November 2023. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (NMD) and historic building assessment were prepared to address potential project impacts and to inform the approval of entitlements.

All assessment work was based on a project that relied upon the adaptive reuse of the existing three-story building. Only the existing asphalt parking lot and the exterior stairs at the rear of the building were to be demolished. A new 4^th floor was to be added to the building and a new 15-story hotel was to be erected in the space occupied by the parking lot.

Then, on 20 December 2024, a new project was filed with City Planning, demolishing the three-story building and erecting a new 11-story hotel over the entire lot. Only the basement of the existing building is to be reused.

The revision was filed as a “minor modification” to the approved project entitlements. And, in accordance with law, a minor modification of approved entitlements does not trigger the need for hearings or resubmittal of the modifications to City Council for approval. City Planning staff agreed with the project change as being minor and the revised project documents have been posted to their case file management system.

I believe that neither the demolition of an existing building, nor the swapping of an integrated-building design for a plain box building represents a “minor” change. Do you agree or disagree based on the available project renderings presented below? I do not know why the original project design was modified after it received both public support and city council approval.

Does This Sound Right?

The Letter of Determination (LOD) for the modification of entitlements was issued on 4 August 2025. The appeal period ended 19 August 2025, less than 10 business days later. Reference is made in the LOD to a revised site plan, but only one copy of the three posted versions includes the plan and project package. More confusing, the old site plan can be easily found since it is listed as a stand-alone document.

The actions by City Planning raise concern as to the fairness to the public of the procedure taken to justify what I consider to be a major change in project scope. One month is all the time it took from issuance of the revised design package to the closure of the appeal period. Less than 10 days were allowed for the public to respond and file an appeal. And why would the public be aware of the change when the redesign was hidden behind a title of “minor” modification.

Why is City Planning Wrong?

The basis for justifying such a major change in project scope as “minor” is not supported by the facts presented in the LOD. While a lead agency may approve minor changes without the need for public hearings or City Council approval, demolition of a potentially historic building does not fall under the definition of minor.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires an analysis of demolition impacts to determine if they cause “substantial adverse changes” to the environment, specifically in the areas of historical resources, air quality, and hazardous materials. The revised LOD is flawed, using prior project approvals based on adaptive reuse to justify the change as minor.

The project assessed under the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) that was adopted on 30 August 2022 is NOT the same project. The prior project involved adaptive reuse of the existing building. The public, PLUM, and City Council voted in favor of adaptive reuse. The new project, and it should be called new, calls for the demolition of a potentially historic building and the erasure of community identity.

As stated in the LOD regarding the General Plan Amendment, the city found the subject site to be part of the significant physical identity of the ever-expanding Arts District. The change in local zoning to regional center commercial was done to enable the site to be redeveloped by renovating the existing hotel in conjunction with building a new hotel.

Now that the applicant does not want to reuse the existing building, City Planning ignores the impact of destroying the building and its part in defining “the significant physical identity” of the local community. With the historic assessment focused on the context of hotel buildings that once served a working-class neighborhood, and the subsequent loss of many of these buildings in the area, City Planning downplays the significance of this lone survivor.

The LOD refers to the uniqueness of the Arts District as an artist community, and that the community needs additional services and amenities, such as hotels. The revised project includes almost 13,000 square feet of new commercial space. This new space will serve the area visitors and residents by providing additional art space, drinking, and dining opportunities.

But, if the provision of additional opportunities is a major metric of importance, then the original project based on adaptive reuse the superior option. The original project was to provide almost 16,000 square feet of commercial space, about 20 percent more space than created with the modified design. For this 20 percent loss of space, what benefit does the public and the local community gain?

The modified LOD also fails to recognize the substantial increase in air emissions associated with demolition and new construction. The MND did not address total building demolition because it was not part of the original project. Demolition will result in increased dust emissions as well as diesel emissions associated with the required haul trucks and demolition equipment. Solid waste generation will increase, along with impacts due to greenhouse gases.

Construction-related emissions will increase because the footage provided by the existing building will have to be replaced. While the total square footage of the two projects is similar, the modified project requires a twenty-eight percent increase in new building activity. CEQA does not specify a specific percent increase for a project modification to remain “minor,” but I doubt that the public would agree that a 28 percent increase in construction activity is minor.

The Historic Assessment

The LOD does not adequately address the effect of demolition on the findings of the historic assessment report. City Planning assumes that the findings do not change, but that is their assumption. Unless City Planning staff hold the proper certifications required by law, they are not qualified to assess the effect. The Historic Resources Report prepared by GPA Consulting was clearly based on adaptive reuse of the building, not demolition.

In addition, even if one ignores the change in project scope, the assessment report makes a number of omissions as to local significance and cultural context. Clearly, based on the report’s findings, I agree that the existing building may not qualify for Federal or State designation. I am much less certain about local designation as I discuss below.

Local Designation Criteria

The historic assessment report does not directly assess historic significance at the local level. Local significance is addressed in Section 5.2 of the report (page 25) as follows:

This statement is absolutely incorrect. A potentially historic building that lacks national or state significance does not preclude it from being designated at the local level. National and local designation are two entirely separate processes governed by different criteria, different authorities, and different objectives. Basically:

National Register listings require significance on a national, state, or broad regional level. Conversely, local designation recognizes sites for their importance to the community’s local history, architecture, or culture. A building might not be important to the nation, but it could be critical to a neighborhood’s identity.

The National Register is honorific, offering recognition and limited protection from federal projects. Local designation is typically “regulatory,” intended to protect the community’s unique character through design review and ordinances.

Local governments have the autonomy to designate properties based on their own ordinances and standards. Los Angeles does not have a minimum age requirement and designation can include interiors. Even if a building is deemed ineligible for listing on the National Register, it can still be worthy of local designation and protection.

Cultural Significance

Section 3.1 of the assessment report, Description and History of the Study Area, documents the development of the Arts District. The area became well known in the late ‘70s as a low-rent haven for artists. The industrial buildings, vacant for years, could be rented for as little as 5 cents per square foot. Living onsite was illegal, but the City tended to ignore this and later passed an ordinance making it legal.

Artist Stephen Seemayer captured on film the exploits of a group of experimental artists he referred to as the “Young Turks” who were active in the area between 1977 and 1981. Working in a neglected, low-rent area, they were known for their edgy, individualistic, and, at times, rebellious art, which ranged from performance and sculpture to painting. It is most likely that these artists frequented the bar at the Rendon Hotel as did subsequent artists until most recently when the building closed.

While some of this history appears in the report section dealing with the area, the sections dealing with site history and historic context do not address the building’s importance to the local “Arts District” community. The “Young Turks” were active in the area more than 45 years ago, definitely qualifying as an historic context for consideration. And, as I’ve noted, a local designation does not require a minimum age to be considered.

Therefore, all of the artist type activities occurring inside and around the building since 1981 should be considered too. Licha’s Santa Fe Grill served as an epicenter for the local artists for many years, up until its recent closing. Some people may recall Licha’s serving as the setting for the underground club 50 Bucks in the late ‘90s and early ‘00s. The building appeared in Rod Stewart’s “Young Turks” music video, in Eddie Murphy’s movie Dolomite, and others.

The present owners continued on in this tradition of hosting artist-inspired events, providing gallery space, and supporting an artist-in-residence program. Activities that took place prior to closure can be found on the website Art at the Rendon. More than 10 community organizations supported the adaptive reuse of the Rendon Hotel and I doubt they would support building demolition.

In Conclusion

At a minimum, both the MND and the historic assessment report should be amended to reflect the change in project scope from adaptive reuse to demolition. The assessment report should include a valid assessment of local significance and the building’s association with local artists under cultural context. The revised MND should then be subjected to public review and a vote taken by City Council.

City Planning should revise the modified LOD to reflect project impact based on the change of project scope. While it may be acceptable to base some findings on analogy between the two projects, there very well are impacts associated with demolition that are not addressed in the LOD based on adaptive reuse. Finding that rely upon the original work should clearly note that the project scope has changed so as not to mislead the reviewer.

And finally, City Planning needs to adopt a policy as to what constitutes a minor change. Clearly, the difference between adaptive reuse and demolition, regardless of historic designation, is not a minor change. City Planning should promote transparency, and not a policy that seeks to hide a major project change from the public and from City Council by labeling the change as a minor modification of entitlements or conditions.

Leave a comment

Share

The Brady Bunch house represents some mythical family lifestyle that white America might envy, while the lowly HCM in the center of Hollywood always represented the real deal. The HCM was my landmark reference point when I attended Hollywood High. Not hidden away on a sidestreet, but right there on Sunset Blvd. Starting in the early 1920’s, it was the home to people who produced the “product” and it later reflected the faded glory of the area. But, the HCM was always ready for its close-up, peeling paint and all.

On Thursday February 5^th, the CHC will hold a hearing to decide the fate of the complex. The OHR is recommending against designation as a landmark. The recent loss of the 1905 Queen Anne house and the northern-most single-family residence makes for a tough sell.

I agree, the sale is tough, but only if you limit your view to the physical features of the site and ignore the cultural. I’m reprinting my letter to the CHC below where I make the argument that a significant part of its importance has been overlooked. The CHC does not have to decide yes or no at this meeting, but they can offer the site another chance for a retake. I hope they give the Hollywood Center Motel that chance.

Note: Two of the seven major structures at the site (buildings 1 and 5), along with some of the signage along Sunset Blvd, were demolished or stolen following CHC acceptance of the HCM application. The disregard of the owner for providing adequate security as required by law and the failure of our city officials to take over ownership of the problem as it escalated is shameful. This is why my comments begin with discussing recent events and then follow with a suggested course of action.

CHC-2025-6242-HCM - Hollywood Center Motel - Agenda Item No. 6

Thank you, commissioners, for this opportunity to provide comments. I’d like to begin by addressing some general issues related to recent events that occurred at the Hollywood Center Motel. I will then present my specific comments regarding the nomination.

The Hollywood Center Motel is a sad example of how our city officials fail us when it comes to the protection and preservation of our remaining historic structures. Private citizens expended a great amount of time, effort, and concern in responding to an ever-growing problem. Why expend such effort? Because we care, even though our elected officials turn a blind eye and refuse to take on ownership of the problem until it gets bulldozed away.

Were you aware that the Historic Resource Assessment report provides clear evidence of the site being in violation of LAMC section 98.0706, Duty to Clean, Fence, and Barricade Vacant Structures? Did you note that the survey crew reported that they were fearful for their safety, that the site was contaminated with biological waste?

Were you aware that CD-13 staff were informed of illegal conditions at the site two months prior to the major fire that claimed the Queen Anne house, and that CD-13 staff only acted after multiple public complaints were filed? That an LADBS inspector, in response to a filed complaint, reported that he was unaware of site conditions and was “shocked” by what he found?

Were you aware that the demolition debris was likely contaminated with asbestos per a prior notification report filed with the SCAQMD? That the owner did not file a notification for removal of asbestos-containing debris and that the hired contractor is not certified to handle and dispose of asbestos waste? That an SCAQMD inspector, who later visited the site after your site visit, was suited up in protective gear prior to entering the area.

What we have is a major situation where both you and the public were put at risk because of an owner who wants these buildings to be gone, and who refuses to comply with the law in maintaining the integrity of the site. Also to blame are our public officials who fail to enforce the law.

I’ve spent many hours talking with other preservation minded people as to what can be done to prohibit demolition by neglect. All of our time wasted because it turns out that protective laws and measures are already in place.

As a public entity tasked with preservation, when are you going to speak up and make this an issue? How many more historic buildings do we need to lose before you wake up and act? I know that these matters are not your direct responsibility, but your failure to speak out in opposition is complicit approval.

Now I will address the matter that is within your scope of authority. The HCM nomination submitted by Hollywood Heritage focuses on the pre-consolidation Queen Anne house built in 1901, the 1920 bungalows, the block wall along Sunset Blvd, and all of the signage that collectively represents the Hollywood Center Motel. The nomination clearly addresses the character-defining features of the extant buildings and signage, features that OHR views as not meeting the level of significance worthy of historic designation.

The nomination application suggests that additional research is required regarding the Motel’s relationship with musicians and Rock & Roll. Such a relationship represents a cultural significance, not one based on solely physical artifacts alone. There is also a cultural relationship between the motel and the two sites to the east that represents the changing arc of business in the area.

I propose that the remaining buildings located on the Hollywood Center Motel site, absent the Queen Anne house and northernmost single-family dwelling, and the area east of the motel, represent an historic “Center” of cultural significance to the Hollywood community.

Hollywood Blvd, the “Walk of Fame,” the “5th Avenue of the West” was never the “Center” of Hollywood for the working-class people who worked behind the camera and microphone. Hollywood Blvd was for the “stars” to go shopping and to be seen.

Sunset Blvd was the place for script writers, character actors, voice talent, and musicians. Sunset Blvd was movie lots and recording studios. Sunset Blvd was the street where the “product” was made, be it film or audio entertainment in all forms, and the Hollywood Center Motel sat at that center.

Ernest A. Forssgren was the owner of the property in 1952 when what we know today as the Hollywood Center Motel began to take form. In prior years, the dwellings housed long-term tenants as well as businesses that served the film, radio, and television industry. Most notable business tenants included the Susevelt Studio (voice training), a health studio, the Ann Meridyth Beauty Salon, the Donato Theatrical Arts studio (body slimming), the Elenta Lindi studio (voice training), and the Williston Art Studio (graphic illustration).

Forssgren also owned the adjacent property to the east, the site of the Hollywood Center Theater. The theater was built in 1922 by the Hollywood Writers Club, which occupied the 2-story residence that sat to the north, closer to Sunset Blvd. The Hollywood Writers Club was the social arm of the Screen Writers Guild. While the Screen Writers’ Guild was open only to scenario writers, the Writers’ Club membership was open to anyone working in the Hollywood community.

The club occupied the clubhouse and theater space until 1937 when they relocated to another building in Hollywood. Subsequent tenants included the restaurant “Sunset Arbor,” the Duncan Sister’s Music Hall, the Hollywood Guild Officers Club, and Dixon McCoy’s recording studio.

In early 1951, the site was advertised as the Don Martin School of Radio and Television Arts and Sciences. Later in the year, the 2-story residence was demolished, the lot split, the theater sold to Forssgren, and the theater entrance modified to face Las Palmas Ave.

With the Hollywood Center Motel and Hollywood Center Theater under common ownership, it is not surprising to find some degree of commonality between the two. In the late 60s and 70’s, musicians would often stay at the Motel while rehearsing at the adjacent Theater.

Record producer David Briggs recalled that by the early 1970s, Neil Young and his band Crazy Horse found themselves staying at the Hollywood Center Motel. Bands would often stay in the back two-story dwelling [extant] and rehearse in the theater which served as auditorium space.

Road manager and author Mark Amans in his book “Where the Action Was” wrote “There was a large building behind the motel where groups used to rehearse, so there was always rock ‘n’ roll being played. One day I woke up and heard Buffalo Springfield rehearsing. Dewey Martin, who I talked about earlier as being the first drummer for Kris Kristofferson, was in the Buffalo Springfield, and so was David Crosby.” “I have a lot of fond memories of the Hollywood Center Motel. Mom always had pictures of the groups that had stayed there in the office, on the wall, and there were a lot of them, including the Raiders [ed: Mark was road manager for Paul Revere & the Raiders].”

Ellis Amburn in her book “Pearl” writes about lead singer Janis Joplin and the band Big Brother and the Holding Company travelling south to Los Angeles to finish their first album. Unable to find lodging on the Sunset Strip, they rented a room with five beds at the Hollywood Center Motel for fourteen dollars a night.

Based on this cultural history, I feel it would be fitting to designate the five remaining buildings, the pool, the block wall, the pole sign, and the site as a cultural monument to the true “Center” of Hollywood. With the site so designated, we can then look at reactivating the “Center” as a viable living space for low-income families and individuals.

In addition, several historic residential buildings that sit to the north of Sunset Blvd need a new home. These homes will be demolished if a viable open site within Hollywood is not found soon. The Hollywood Center Motel, absent the Queen Anne house and single-family dwelling, can serve as their new home, but it will take your designation to make this happen.

All I ask of you at this time is to place the current application on hold and allow Hollywood Heritage the opportunity to submit a revised application that addresses the cultural significance of the site to the Hollywood community. Such action is fully within your authority. Help Hollywood heal just a little from years of neglect and uncaring property owners.

Share

Leave a comment

TRACKING STATUS (TS)

After submitting your complaint and notifying others of the violation, it’s time to track the status of your submittal. While LADBS requires your contact information, do not expect to hear back from an inspector. You may get a call, you may not. Here is how you can track your complaint online without having to make repeated calls to the inspector for updates.

Step TS-1 – Go to the LADBS website

Access the LADBS website at dbs.lacity.gov, scroll down the page, and under the box titled “Enforcement” click on “Complaint Status.”

Step TS-2 – Search for Permit & Inspection Report by CSR

There are two ways to search for Permit & Inspection Reports. You may search by building address or by your CSR number. To search by CSR number, select the “Other Searches” tab, enter your number in the box I’ve highlighted in yellow below, and click “Search.” The report will include date submitted, a brief description of the complaint, the assigned inspector, their contact number, and complaint status.

Status will initially be reported as “under investigation.” During the investigation, the inspector will open a case file, may visit the site, and determine the corrective action required. Some complaints may remain “under investigation” for years.

Other complaints may be quickly closed if the complaint is referred to another agency or if the complaint is a duplicate service request. A duplicate request means that your complaint is similar to complaints filed by others. LADBS consolidates all duplicate complaints into one open case file and considers the duplicate request closed.

You may be happy stopping here. You’ve done a great job helping protect an historic building, and you’ve alerted the proper authorities and the community. But, perhaps you want to know more. What were the other complaints? When were they filed? What was the final action taken? To learn more, continue on to the next step.

Step TS-3 – Search for Permit & Inspection Report by address

If your complaint is closed, or shown as a duplicate service request, search for the open complaint via an address search. Select the “Single Address” tab and enter the building address.

On the next screen, select “Code Enforcement Information” by clicking on the “+” to open the list (red arrow). The address 6720 Sunset has 7 code enforcement actions or complaints on file as of the search date.

Step TS-4 – Review the list and select a complaint

Here is the expanded complaint list for 6720 Sunset. Notice that the first complaint for an abandoned or vacant building is listed as “Under Investigation.” Subsequent complaints are listed as “Closed.” LADBS will close duplicate requests once they have been consolidated into one open case. An open case may remain open for years until the case is fully resolved.

To obtain more data, click on the date for the case that is “Under Investigation” (red arrow). If you click on the date of a closed case, you will be shown a report with the status listed as “Duplicate Request.”

The new screen that opens may provide information as to code violations found during the site inspection and the issuance of orders to comply. The investigation at 6720 Sunset is new and ongoing, so the lack of additional data is expected.

As the investigation proceeds, more data will appear in the report. As an example, here is the Permit & Inspection Report for 6714 Hollywood, the old Pig’n Whistle building. Additional information includes a list of orders to comply and a list of specific code violations (bottom red arrow).

Also note that in both examples, the URL (top red arrow) displays the CSR number for the open complaint and the case file number. With the case file number, it is possible to obtain a copy of the file by making a public record request. The case file contains information as to all of the complaints received (sans personal data), the findings of site inspections, interviews, and recommended actions.

IN CLOSING

I’ve covered a lot of ground in this two part post, and I hope I haven’t lost you along the way. Please feel free to reach out and comment should you find a mistake or have a question. Even better, post your comments and questions over on the subreddit message board “Los Angeles Blight” which is seeking to build a local community of concerned citizens tried of living among blighted properties and do not see abatement via demolition as a viable solution.

And, if you are looking for information as to how to research project applications and building permits, check out my prior post:

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

With the building heavily damaged, the city will rule the building a nuisance subject to abatement. Abatement often means demolition. “Demolition by neglect” is used by unscrupulous developers to sidestep the process of obtaining a potentially costly demolition permit.

Los Angeles has specific ordinances to prevent vacant buildings from becoming public nuisances or safety risks. Three major actions include:

• Vacant Building Ordinances – The Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) requires vacant buildings to be maintained in a secure and sanitary condition.

• Fines and Liens – Failure to comply with an order to secure can result in a fine of up to $1,000 per day for a vacant unsecured building and a lien placed on the property by the city to cover costs if they must secure the building.

• City Intervention – If an owner fails to secure a building, the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety (LADBS) can step in to barricade, padlock, or fence the property, and the owner will be charged for these services.

Before the LADBS can act, they must be notified that the building is unsecured. The LADBS does not have a proactive code enforcement unit that seeks out vacant and unsecured buildings. LADBS inspectors will conduct a site visit to confirm building status and will initiate follow-up action, if required, but it all begins with notification. This is where the public can make a big difference.

REPORTING VIOLATIONS (RV)

Filing a complaint for an unsecured vacant building is fairly straight-forward once you know the process. A complaint may be filed with LADBS at dbs.lacity.gov or you may use the MyLA311 website or phone app. From the main page of the MyLA311 site under all service requests, select private property and then private property violations. Both LADBS and MyLA311 request similar information. The examples presented in this guide are from the LADBS website.

Step RV-1 – Determine the official building address

When filing a complaint, it is important to provide the official building address. Each building may have more than one address. To obtain an official address, visit the website NavigateLA which is maintained by the Bureau of Engineering, Department of Public Services. Official addresses appear in blue font and are presented as a five-digit number with leading zeros. A “U” code denotes an unassigned address.

The screen shot below shows 6720 Sunset Blvd highlighted in yellow. The address is for one of the buildings located at the Hollywood Center Motel. The Hollywood Center Motel is a vacant building complex that has experienced at least two recent fires. The site is currently being considered for Historic-Cultural Monument (HCM) designation. The address of the historic house in the center of the complex is 6722 (and 6724) Sunset Blvd.

The NavigateLA site is useful for finding addresses based on a visual search of the city. To make your search easier, I suggest you click on Table of Contents (green circle) and then check the box under Table of Contents (green arrow) to display an aerial photo over the map. The aerial photo provides more visual clues to help you identify the building of concern.

Step RV-2 – Go to the LADBS website

The next step is to access the LADBS website at dbs.lacity.gov. Scroll down the page, look for the box titled “Enforcement,” and click on “Report Violation” (outlined in yellow). You can also check on the status of your complaint, once filed, and make a public record request for the inspection case file.

Step RV-3 – Select the type of violation

There are five types of violations you can report. For an unsecured vacant building, you want to report a violation involving a single-family dwelling or commercial building (green circle). Even if the building is a duplex or apartment, report it as a commercial building if vacant. If you select duplex or apartment, your complaint will be diverted to the Los Angeles Housing Department (LAHD).

Step RV-4 – Report a violation by address

The LADBS website will take you to a form where you must conduct an address search. You may search either by entering a single address or by entering a range of addresses. The number and street name are entered separately, do not enter prefixes.

The LADBS website does not provide a visual map for determining a building’s address. If you enter an address, the system will only confirm if that address is in their database. It will not provide you a list of other addresses that may be associated with the property. This is why I suggest you first check the NavigateLA site.

Step RV-5 – Avoid the roadblock, answer no

After you enter the street address, street name, and click search, you will be asked three questions about your complaint. To reach the LADBS, the proper answer to all three questions is “No.” If you answer “Yes,” your complaint will be directed to another city agency.

For example, if your request only involves graffiti, you will be directed to MyLA311 where you can file a service request for abatement. The LADBS will not open a case file, as they are not responsible for graffiti abatement (though graffiti can be a clear sign that the building is vacant and a target for demolition by neglect).

Step RV-6 – Identify yourself, provide contact information

LADBS requires you to provide your name and phone number in order to accept a complaint filed online. Information regarding your address and email is optional. LADBS has a legal obligation to protect your identity within reason, but your identity can be discovered via legal filings or court order.

Step RV-7 – Describe your complaint(s)

Clicking “Next” takes you to the form where you describe your complaint. Be as descriptive as possible, but keep in mind the duties of the LADBS. They are focused on safety, so don’t use your limited space to discuss issues like graffiti or weeds. Clearly state that the building is vacant and unsecured. If your complaint involves multiple buildings, provide all of the addresses in the text field.

If people have illegally entered the building, state so. Have these people tapped into electric lines, set fires, or threatened the public? Have the police or fire department been called out for prior incidents? For how long has illegal entry been ongoing?

Provide all the facts you can, but under no circumstance should you confront any squatter or enter the site/building to obtain evidence. Site/building entry to obtain evidence is trespassing.

After describing your complaint, I suggest you save a copy either in a draft email to yourself or to a document file. LADBS will not provide you with a copy of what you submit. Having a copy of your submittal is useful for your records.

Now answer the question as to type of property involved. The choice includes residential or commercial. Click the appropriate radio button and then click the “V” in the bottom box (highlighted in yellow) to open up a drop-down menu of official complaint types. Even if you file multiple complaints, you must select one complaint type that best matches your complaints.

The full list of complaint types is shown below (reformatted for display). I find the list to be interesting since it shows the many complaint types submitted. Outlined in red are the complaint types I believe most often relate to historic buildings.

Step RV-8 – Receive confirmation

Click “Submit” and you should receive confirmation of your submission. The notice will include your Customer Service Request (CSR) number along with date and time of submission. I suggest you copy and paste your confirmation message to where you saved the text of your complaint.

Step RV-9 – Notify others and build a community

Once submitted, LADBS inspectors will investigate, and they may conduct a site visit to confirm your complaint. The severity of the complaint, and the more complaints received, play a role in the assignment of complaint priority.

A vacant and unsecured property that receives multiple complaints rather than one is more likely to be prioritized. Higher priority is also likely to occur if pressure is brought to bear by city officials such as your district councilmember and local Los Angeles Police Department representative (if complaint involves illegal entry).

Once your complaint is accepted by LADBS, it’s a good practice to send a copy of the code violation via email to your council office. Be clear about the building address and the specifics of your complaint. Ask them to track the complaint, communicate with the inspector, get the property owner to fix things, or have LADBS do it.

Vacant buildings that become a public nuisance are often abated (i.e., demolished) by order of the Building and Safety Commission. Public outrage is commonly met by the local council district and LADBS claiming that they weren’t aware of the situation. You can counter this excuse by filing a complaint before the situation gets out of hand and by notifying the council district.

Do you want to do more? You can through the power of crowdsourcing. You can raise public awareness and help save threatened buildings by letting the community know about your concerns and complaints. You can easily share information with others on the subreddit message board “Los Angeles Blight.” The purpose of this board is to amplify complaints about blighted properties so they cannot be ignored by our city officials. Creating a Reddit account is free.

IN CLOSING

I hope you find this guide to filing a complaint with the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety to be of interest and use. “Demo by Neglect - Part II” presents the steps involved in tracking the status of your submitted complaint. Please let me know if you find any errors, or if you find a step to be confusing. Until next time, it’s back down the rabbit hole.

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

In my comment, I asked if everyone had overlooked the expiration of project approval. I was sure that the entitlements expired in April. I was in error; project approval is still active. And, contrary to a subsequent post on Esotouric’s Secret Los Angeles, my comment wasn’t a bombshell, but a dud.

WHERE DID I GO WRONG?

Based on further investigation, the issuance of a demolition permit is possible. I apologize for putting out false hope that the Letter of Determination (LoD), (provide link) the official document that specifies the approved entitlements, has expired.

My error is due to an assumption on my part that the LoD is a self-contained document. The LoD clearly specifies various dates such as approval (17 April 2022), last day to file an appeal (1 April 2022), and effective date (2 April 2022). The LoD clearly states on page 5, condition 20, that the LoD expires within 3 years pending certain conditions:

20. Expiration. In the event that this grant is not utilized within three years of its effective date (the day following the last day that an appeal may be filed), the grant shall be considered null and void. Issuance of a building permit, and the initiation of, and diligent continuation of, construction activity shall constitute utilization for the purposes of this grant.

However, nowhere is it stated within the LoD document or on the City Planning Case File project page that the COVID-19 emergency tolling period applies. You’re just supposed to know. Mayor Garcetti approved the tolling ordinance on 21 March 2020. Mayor Bass rescinded the ordinance on 28 February 2023.

During the tolling period, all compliance dates were placed on hold. With the expiration of the tolling period, the clock restarted. Building permits and related documents received a special adjustment that added time to comply, Community Plans and ordinances requiring City Council approval received no such adjustment. It was a clear example of developers receiving special treatment while the public was rushed to get back up to speed and provide comment.

The LoD for the Silver Platter project took effect 2 April 2022 with expiration originally set to occur on 2 April 2025 (i.e., 3 years). The tolling period adds to the original expiration date the time from when the LoD takes effect to the end of the tolling period plus 6 months. If my math is correct, the revised expiration date is 28 August 2026, about 9 months from now and 17 months from the original date.

In my defense, City Planning should clearly call out the actual date of expiration on each and every permit and supporting document. I tried to check the effect of the tolling period prior to commenting, but all I found was a Department of Building and Safety webpage announcing the expiration of the tolling ordinance. The webpage states ”Click here for important information regarding expiration dates of your permits and related documents,” but there is no clickable link.

WHAT CAN BE DONE?

While the threat of demolition still looms over the building, I believe there is much the city can do to support the Silver Platter bar. Back in early July 2024, I contacted CD-1 Councilmember Hernandez and her staff to discuss some actions that the city could take to honor the history of the bar. Proposed actions included:

• Approach the developer and ascertain the potential for adaptive reuse. Demolition of the building may be prompted by the inclusion of elevated and below grade parking. Demolition and excavation can be avoided by the elimination of parking as now allowed by AB 2097 for TOC projects.

• Instruct the Office of Historic Resources to direct Sapphos Environmental to revise their Historic Assessment Report to address the cultural significance of this legacy “safe haven” business to the Los Angeles LGBTQ and Latin community. The exclusion of cultural significance is a major omission and a slight to the community. Please note, correcting the report does not require Council to halt or disapprove the project. The intent of correction is to give proper respect to a beloved institution.

• Dependent on the findings of the corrected Historic Assessment Report, CD-1 and OHR staff should nominate the intersection of 7th and Rampart as Silver Platter Square. This nomination by the City does not affect the demolition process but does acknowledge the importance of this legacy “safe haven” business to the community.

• Arrange for a meeting between the developer and the owner of the bar to determine the possibility of this legacy bar reopening in the ground floor commercial space at a reduced lease rate. Adaptive reuse, and the elimination of parking, should generate sufficient savings to offset the reduction in the lease.

CD-1 staff replied with a very cordial message. They were thankful for my advocacy on the issue. They then mentioned the complex state and local planning issues, that the major site revisions I proposed were not feasible.

THE TYPICAL CITY RESPONSE

Notice, I did not request major site revisions. I requested CD-1 to facilitate a meeting with the developer to explore the potential option of adaptive reuse. I requested CD-1 to contact OHR and direct the developer to correct the historic record. Instead of taking constructive action, CD-1 staff chose to take a “hands off” position and view my suggestions as impossible, beyond their authority to act.

Their reply went on as to how there was nothing they could do because the project was “deemed complete” under state law and that the 90-day appeal period had passed. They also brought up the State Housing Crisis Act (HCA) and if the city violates the HCA, they would be subject to financial daily penalties and be in jeopardy of losing all affordable housing dollars received from the State.

My emails to CD-1 staff continued for days as I tried to confirm the basis of their claims. Every document I sent, every question I posed about the law, was met by silence. Based on my research, their claims as to the HCA impacting their ability to alter a project once it is “deemed complete” are not correct in reference to the designation of a potentially historic building.

Their reference to the city being fined for every housing unit denied is a red herring. It’s a sanitized story put out by the City Attorney. It’s a claim stated by rote when the public asks their councilmember for help in protecting a building. I’ve written elsewhere about this issue and will provide a brief summary. If you want more details, see my post “Is the Housing Accounting Act Anti-Preservation?”.

THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

Briefly, the Housing Act (Section 65913.10(a)) requires the historic determination for a housing project to be made when the application is deemed complete. City Planning has 30 days to review and rule the application complete, pending corrections for errors. The intent of the law is to prevent cities from repeatedly delaying projects by coming up with new requirements.

However, the Housing Act also includes a disclaimer (Section 65913.10(c)) that states that nothing in Section 65913.10 supersedes, limits, or otherwise modifies the requirements of CEQA, the California Environmental Quality Act. Under CEQA, the Cultural Heritage Commission can revisit a prior historic assessment when new information is brought to light.

A new historic evaluation can lead to the filing of an HCM application, and the acceptance of the application triggers a stay on demolition. If the building is designated historic, additional steps are required to justify building demolition. Designation is not project denial, all it does is move the controlling regulation from the housing act to CEQA. All of these actions are possible, but the city has yet to acknowledge their authority to do so as granted by section 65913.10(c).

What about the fines? Will the City be subject to a court-imposed fine of $10,000 or more per housing unit denied as specified Section 65589.5 of the HAA? I’m not a lawyer, but the Technical Assistance Advisory issued by the State in September 2020 presents a very different picture.

When a city denies a compliant housing project, the developer or an interested party may bring the city to court. In court, the city must defend their action and show that denial was not done in bad faith. If the city successfully defends their action, the case is dismissed and the denial stands. If the city cannot defend their action, the judge will order compliance. The city has 60 days to approve the project. Fines are imposed if the city refuses to comply with the Court order, not for project denial.

The intent of the HAA is to prevent cities from rejecting projects on the sole basis of size or aesthetics alone. The law is not intended to prevent the preservation of historic resources as clearly indicated by the inclusion of Section 65913.10(c). In failing to use their authority, the city is allowing potentially historic buildings to be destroyed all for the sake of avoiding a court case to defend their actions.

THE $64,000 QUESTION

The city is taking the position that the HAA is absolute, forcing them to allow the demolition of a potentially historic building even if the assessment is flawed or outdated. I contend that CEQA allows for the reassessment of a building whenever new information comes to light. If reassessment results in the building being declared historic, then the project is no longer CEQA exempt. Historic status kicks the project out of the HAA, and fines due to project denial no longer apply. The major question is which law controls with reference to historic buildings?

I posed this question to the Housing Accountability Unit (HAU) with the California Department of Housing and Community Development. The HAU is responsible for answering questions and addressing violations of the Housing Accountability Act and its subset, the Housing Crisis Act.

After filing my request for technical assistance and submitting additional emails about the nature of my inquiry, I had to attend an online meeting. The meeting was cordial, but it was more for me to explain my inquiry again and respond to questions. In the meeting, I was told it was their job to help project applicants use the law to defend against violators (i.e., cities). It was highly unusual for them to assist in a case where the Housing Act might violate another law such as CEQA. Here’s the extent of their help that I received in an email:

No clear violation, no enforcement authority. What they are saying is that I am not a developer with a denied project, so they see no violation. They see their job as only going after cities that deny housing projects. The misuse of the housing law to tear down historic buildings and prohibit historic designation is not their concern.

I replied that I was disappointed that they decided to close my case. I understood that they did not have enforcement authority regarding my specific issue, but they are the primary source for answering questions about housing law. If they cannot provide an answer, who can? Here’s their subsequent reply:

All of these exchanges occurred in July 2024. I have received no further replies from CD-1, from City Planning, or from the State as to my inquiry. Subsequent emails went unanswered. No information has been forthcoming from CD-1 or City Planning as to project status. Esotouric reports that the bar owner is looking to relocate and that the developer’s website has gone dark. No effort has been made by OHR to correct the historical record.

CLOSING THOUGHTS

Trying to figure out complex planning and environmental regulations is never an easy task. The laws are loaded with qualifiers and exceptions, any one of which can change the meaning of the law. Lawyers are paid large amounts because they have an obligation to remain current and up to date in reference to case law. Court rulings are often where the specific details of a law are defined and worked out.

I know many people who are trying to make a difference in this complex field. It’s a difficult road to travel, and mistakes will happen. My mistake prompted this post. I’ll try to do better.

It’s sad to say that our city, once a leader in the field of historic preservation, now lags behind. We no longer have an independent Historic Cultural Commission and the advice received often parrots City Planning. Our City Attorney, an official office that could help, is on record that she is not there to serve the public.

Our local council members might be of help, but the council district system tends to hide the extent of the problem and dilute public effort. Public comments are handled case-by-case, address-by-address, making it easier for officials to ignore the size and extent of the problem. An historic building is lost, people move on, and the routine repeats in another district with new players.

Today I’m talking about the Silver Platter bar in the Westlake district. Tomorrow I might be talking about the Hollywood Center Motel in Hollywood. But my comments about housing law and historic preservation apply equally throughout the city. Where is the mechanism by which the public can enact change city-wide?

We need some form of recognized collective where people can come together to help and aid each other. A place where problems can be identified and the solutions derived from crowd-sourced support. The seeds of such a collective are slowly taking root. There is a community effort underway to address the problems associated with vacant buildings and demolition by neglect. I’ll soon be posting about it.

Of course, none of this helps the Silver Platter bar, and I’m sorry I cannot do more. I tried to propose some viable solutions but was met by opposition. When city officials refuse to ask a developer to consider adaptive reuse, when they refuse to ask for the correction of errors and omissions in a project document, and when the nomination of a public space is viewed as asking for the impossible, we know that this city does not give a damn about preservation and their thanks for our advocacy tastes like ashes in our mouths.

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

While Senator Weiner has put a target on historic preservation because it can delay or impede housing development, I’ve documented elsewhere how the overall impact of preservation versus development is trivial. Sadly, our Cultural Heritage Commission (CHC) and the Department of City Planning, rather than push back on behalf of the preservation community, have decided to submit to political pressure and remove any and all impediments to the building of new housing.

The San Francisco Approach

Imagine my surprise when I came across a presentation by San Francisco Planning (SFP) to their Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) that presents preservation as a key component of their rezoning program. SFP accepts the challenge of upzoning to meet their Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) target, but they do not allow upzoning to destroy the character of their residential districts. Historic buildings may undergo redevelopment via adaptive reuse, but not via demolition and replacement.

And there’s more. SFP is conducting district-wide surveys to identify buildings that are worthy of historic designation and protection. Once identified, the buildings will be subject to the official nomination process. While the public may submit individual building nominations, SFP and HPC are leading the effort to designate a substantial number of buildings all at once.

The Los Angeles Approach

San Francisco’s overall approach to upzoning and historic preservation is very different from Los Angeles. City Planning did upzone to meet our RHNA target, but it was done with little regard to historic preservation. City Planning has issued guidelines for adaptive reuse, but I have not found any case where the city has mandated the use of these guidelines.

The Office of Historic Resources (OHR) manages the results of the city-wide survey of historic buildings (known as SurveyLA) with the results available on their website HistoricPlacesLA. The survey data is available for public use, but OHR and Planning do not use the data to actively promote nominations. Most nominations come from building owners and the public, with OHR now refusing to accept nominations filed by the public in response to pending demolition permits.

Don’t We Follow the Same State Laws?

And lest you believe that OHR and the CHC are just following the law, ask yourself why then is San Francisco able to protect historic buildings and actively expand that protection? How can San Francisco District 8, with a population of 61,500 residents, add 16 more historic buildings to their inventory of 28 landmarked buildings while the city of Los Angeles, with a population of almost 4 million, typically designates 25 to 30 buildings per year? District 8 is the SF district that was formerly represented by pro-development Senator Scott Weiner. Does this glaring difference make sense?

Well, yes, if you keep in mind that the HPC has autonomous authority to designate historic buildings. HPC decisions do not need to be approved by another agency such as the Director of Planning, the Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) Committee, or by City Council. The HPC is staffed by qualified individuals with extensive experience in the fields of historic preservation and designation. HPC decisions cannot be revised or amended by unqualified city staff or council members subject to political pressure.

The Impact of Charter Reform

Los Angeles once had a CHC with autonomous authority. Revisions to our City Charter demoted the CHC to an advisory role within City Planning. This added oversight, requiring designations to be approved by PLUM and City Council, injected politics into the designation process.

And now, City Planning is seeking additional charter reform so that their Director has sole authority rather than the CHC, PLUM, or City Council. Is giving the Director of City Planning sole authority the right approach? Or should full authority be returned to an independent CHC?

What You Can Do

If you feel strongly about this issue, now is the time to speak up. The Charter Reform Commission Planning & Infrastructure Committee is holding a hearing this Tuesday Nov 18th, 2025 at 3 pm at City Hall, 200 N Spring St., Room 1010. You may attend in person or online via Zoom.

Written comments should be directed to ReformLAcharter@lacity.org by 3 pm Monday Nov 17^th. Late submissions will be filed for later review, so please comment even if you miss the deadline. I’m posting some of my written comments below if you need some ideas. And, if you want to read my entire submission, along with the supporting documents about the San Francisco program, they have been uploaded to the Internet Archive.

Extract of Submitted Letter

Dear Commissioners and Committee Members,

Thank you for this opportunity to provide input to the City Charter reform process. You have received comments from the City Planning Department as to how their operations can be improved (letter from Director of Planning to Commission dated 21 August 2025). While I support efforts to improve City operations, I do not agree with their proposed plan to place all decision making into the hands of the Director.

City Planning is responsible for the designation of buildings found to be historically or culturally significant. Designation is currently a complex process that is inefficient, costly, and time consuming. For a potentially significant building under the threat of demolition, the process does not work. Rather than delay demolition so that the building can be assessed properly, City Planning refuses to accept applications from the public. This action gives project proponents seeking to demolish a building a right that does not exist.

City Planning policy established the procedure by which buildings can be designated as historic. And now, when the public follows their procedure, the public is chastised for acting too late. When the public complains about preservation laws not being followed, City Planning either ignores the complaint or misquotes the law.

Overall, we need to streamline the historic designation process, improve transparency, and remove the politicized agenda that favors developers over the public. In seeking a viable solution, I propose that the City Charter be amended to restore all decision-making authority to the Cultural Heritage Commission.

Los Angeles once led the nation with its progressive historic preservation program. Decisions made by the CHB and CHC were not subject to revision or modification by unqualified politicians. Cities with independent boards or commissions include San Francisco, New York, Boston, Chicago, and Philadelphia. It’s time for Los Angeles to restore our once “best-in-class” program by returning sole historic designation authority to the CHC.

In closing, thank you again for this opportunity to comment. I have attached additional material and background information for your review.

Respectfully,

Michael Callahan, P.E.

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

Looking back on how we got here, I thought it might be insightful to explore the methodology used to derive the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation for Los Angeles. City Planning has written extensively about the allocation, but they have not written about the basis on which the allocation is derived. Key findings of my exploration include:

• Many details of the RHNA allocation process are not public and can only be derived by reverse-engineering the published results. If you’re into that type of exercise, you can read my “City of Los Angeles Regional Needs Assessment (RHNA) Report” posted on the Internet Archive.

• The RHNA allocation of 456,643 units is extremely large compared to the 5^th cycle allocation of 82,002 units. The new allocation attempts to correct the last 5 cycles of omission, all within the current cycle.

• The 6^th cycle forecasts a city population of 4.45 million by 2029, an increase of 450,000 over our peak population of 4 million in 2018. The actual population of the city has declined to 3.8 million, negating the need for new units due to growth.

• The need for new units to address existing issues is over-inflated since the methodology applies factors based on 2017 data to the existing plus new unit projection for 2029, and not the existing projection for 2021.

• My calculations show that a reasonable allocation ranges from 149,716 to 266,548 units (high-end assumes the population increase must be maintained). Zoning capacity, at the end of the 5^th cycle, was 228,850 units, excluding projects allowed via discretionary approval. Per my revised allocations, no upzoning was needed for the 6^th cycle.

• Recent occupancy data for 2023 may reflect a decline in overcrowding. The data may also reflect an exodus of families from the city. Overall, occupancy density declined from 2.71 persons per unit in 2017 to 2.51 persons per unit in 2023.

• Local housing production continues to increase while our population declines. My observation is that most of the new high-density housing is for singles living alone or couples without children, not multi-member families. Until the state focuses on the type of residential units being built, not just shear numbers per economic class, the exodus of families from the city is likely to continue.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Sacramento continues to chip away at our rights, all in the name of responding to the housing “crisis.” Their one size fits all approach to the problem is to ignore the zoning limits imposed by Community Plans even if the state certifies that the city meets the mandated RHNA allocation. What started out as a 50 percent bonus for the developers of residential units in transit zones, has been increased to 100 percent. And this density increase is not the limit, eliminating parking and reducing setbacks and green space allows for more density.

And there’s also the hidden increase or bump. It comes about when an existing Community Plan is revised and updated. The zoning is bumped up to comply with State requirements. But the capacity isn’t increased to meet the requirement, it’s increased to exceed the requirement. By how much? That number is unknown. And remember that the State bonus density then goes on top of existing zoning, which was just bumped up in the updated plan.

In the past, a developer wanting to increase density beyond that allowed by zoning would request a variance. Approving a variance was a negotiated process between the developer, City Planning, and the public. To be granted a variance, the developer would often have to offer the public a tangible benefit for allowing their project to proceed. However, this traditional process goes away provided the housing project remains below the ever-increasing allowable limit. The project becomes ministerial (i.e., the application is rubber stamped approval as long as it meets the minimum requirements), and the public loses their right as a stakeholder to engage.

THE RHNA ALLOCATION PROCESS

To understand why the city of Los Angeles is faced with a significant level of residential housing development, we need to look at the process that got us here. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is the California State-mandated process that is used to ensure that all cities and counties plan (i.e., zone) for enough housing to accommodate all economic segments of the community. The lack of adequately zoned capacity is claimed by the State to be a significant contributor to increased land prices and housing development costs.

To ensure that each jurisdiction meets its fair share of providing adequate zoning capacity, the State follows a complex process known as the RHNA Allocation process. Many details of the allocation process are not public and can only be derived by reverse-engineering the published results. If you want to read about my efforts, you can access my document “City of Los Angeles Regional Needs Assessment (RHNA) Report” on the Internet Archive.

Each RHNA housing element covers an 8-year period of time and is referred to as a cycle. We are currently in the 6^th cycle, which began October 2021 and ends October 2029. The 6^th cycle requires Los Angeles to provide zoning capacity for 456,643 new residential units compared to 82,000 units for the prior cycle. City Planning reports that the existing capacity prior to the start of the 6^th cycle was about 50 percent of the total capacity required.

While cycles 1 through 5 were mostly focused on providing sufficient capacity for population growth, the 6^th cycle attempts to account for population growth and correct existing housing issues. Existing issues include a lack of vacant units, people living in over-crowded conditions, and a large portion of income going towards rent (known as cost burden). The allocation of 456,643 units is extremely large because the state is trying to correct 5 cycles of omission, all within the current cycle.

THE SIXTH CYCLE (2021-2029)

The 6^th RHNA Allocation cycle marks a major change. The State adopted AB 101 in 2019 which requires the allocation process to address the need for more vacant units to be available in the market, more units to help reduce the cost of renting, and more units to help reduce over-crowding.

The table below presents my breakdown of the allocation for the region and the city of Los Angeles. Zoning capacity, at the end of the 5^th cycle, was 228,850 units (300,000 units capacity minus 71,150 units built), far short of the 456,643 units required. The difference is the driver for bumping up the existing zoning capacity.

POPULATION FORECAST

The chart presented below provides a comparison of the 5^th cycle population forecast, the 6^th cycle population forecast, and actual population growth for the city. Also included is a trendline showing the 6^th cycle forecast plus the added population associated with housing for transit and job growth. While SCAG included units for transit and job growth under household growth, they did not include the population growth associated with this job growth.

Charting this population data is important because it reflects the mindset of those preparing the forecasts. A forecaster faced with an exploding population may be more likely to favor metrics that yield higher housing allocations.

There’s also the ripple effect. The allocation of new housing units required to meet the existing need is not based on the number of units occupied at the start of the cycle. Instead, the methodology uses the total number of units at the end of the cycle. If population growth is over-predicted, then the number of projected units is over-predicted and so too all of the other needs, including cost burden.

As shown in the chart, the 5^th cycle (light blue line) did a good job of forecasting population up until the year 2020. SCAG local profile data for 2023 shows that the population of the city has declined by 5 percent from a peak population of 4 million. Online sources vary regarding the trend. Some show the downward trend continuing, others show a slow rebound.

The light brown line, the 6^th cycle, shows poor agreement with population data. The forecast grows at a rate exceeding that of the 5^th cycle while the actual population declines. In addition, the dark green line represents the true population growth for the 6^th cycle. No population growth was assigned to the housing that was added for transit and job growth.

Overall, the 6^th cycle forecasts a city population of 4.45 million by 2029, an increase of 450,000 over our peak population of 4 million in 2018. This increase represents a need for 225,000 new housing units at an occupancy of 2 people per unit. However, it is highly unlikely that we will return to a population of 4 million by the end of the cycle. Thus, no housing growth is required to meet population growth.

A MORE REASONABLE ALLOCATION?

Having dived into the basis for the 6^th cycle allocation and showing how the forecast (reported plus hidden growth) exceeds actual population, I thought it might be interesting to run through the methodology again and derive a new allocation for Los Angeles. The table below presents the original allocation by SCAG versus my revised allocation.

I estimate a more reasonable housing allocation to be 266,548 units compared to the 456,643 units allocated to the city by SCAG. My revised estimate ignores the large decline in population, a decline that was evident prior to the start of the 6^th cycle. By ignoring the population decline, my revised estimate is still conservative. If I account for the population decline, I can remove another 116,832 new units resulting in a total allocation of 149,716 units.

The difference between the mandated allocation of 456,643 units and my revised allocation of 149,716 to 266,548 units is the difference that drives the increase in zoning. Zoning capacity, at the end of the 5^th cycle, was 228,850 units (300,000 units capacity minus 71,150 units built). The actual capacity is much greater than 228,850 units since the estimate excludes projects that are allowed via discretionary approval. It will be interesting to see how these metrics play out for the upcoming 7^th cycle.

ANYTHING GOOD TO REPORT?

Maybe. The chart shown below presents a picture of changing residential occupancy density within the city. The chart is based on data from the 5-year American Community Surveys for the years 2017 and 2023.

From 2017 to 2023, housing stock increased by 79,000 units while our population declined by 92,000 people. The net effect was an increase in the number of people living 1 to 3 per unit and a decrease in the number of people living 4 or more per unit. Overall, occupancy density went from 2.71 persons per unit in 2017 to 2.51 persons per unit in 2023.

On the bright side, the data might reflect a decline in overcrowding. While defined as more than one person per room, I think it’s fair to say that the number of persons per room relates to the number of persons per unit. The group with the largest decline at 26 percent was 7 or more people per unit. I expect this trend to continue as the city adds more housing, and the population continues to decline.

However, there could be a dark side. Households with a large number of people per unit are most likely families. These families could be leaving the city, in search of more open space, less density, and more affordable rent. Offsetting this loss is an influx of younger single people, less prone to form family units. Therefore, it’s good to keep in mind that the reported population decline only represents the delta, not the actual number of people on the move nor does it say anything about the demographic shift that is occurring.

And all of this begs a question. Is the new housing market responding to this demographic shift or is the market driving the shift? Programs like ED-1, and SB-79, seek to encourage developers to build more housing. Much of the housing built to date and in the pipeline is intended for young, single, urban professionals, not multi-member families. Units tend to be less than 1,000 square feet in size and the building provides minimal green space, if any at all. Located in transit areas, the availability of public parks where children can play is almost non-existent.

While the state is focused on building more housing within transit areas, they are not addressing the need for family-support services within these areas. All focus is on the number of units built, with little consideration given to personal space per person and issues related to quality of life. Until the state focuses on the type of residential units being built, not just shear numbers per economic class, the exodus of multi-member families from the city is likely to continue.

[1] The data presented in the table is my best faith effort to present a breakdown of the 6^th cycle allocation requirements. At the time the allocations were released, the details of the process were not made public. City Planning did provide comment as to how the allocation placed an unfair burden on the city (19-0773_misc_10-25-2019.pdf), but their comments only addressed the distribution of the allocation, not the basis on which the allocation was developed.

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

Prior to 2019, the single-family mansion was a 6-unit apartment. An Internet search found the apartment listed on the website Apartments.com. They described living in the area as:

“One of the most unique aspects of Westlake is that many of the apartment buildings have been constructed from old mansions that lined the neighborhood streets in the 1920s [and 1910s, ed.]. With everything from parks and shopping to historical Los Angeles mansions and landmarks, the Westlake community has something for everyone.”

While the prior owner used the Ellis Act to evict tenants, and the new owner seeks to convert the site back to apartment use, gone will be another mansion from historic Westlake. I say “gone” because the term “convert” is very deceptive.

The filed permit lists the scope of work as a major remodel and addition of an existing 2-story single family dwelling to 6-unit apartment with attached ADU. The case has been filed as an Administrative (ADM) Clearance Review (CLR) for a “by-right” project. No discretionary action is associated with this project, and no vesting form is required. The project applicant filed an application, and the Planning Department rubber-stamped the project approved, after their review of the landscaping plan.

Only by reviewing the approved landscaping plan (a plan that is not posted online and was obtained via a record request), did I learn that “convert” means demolition. The plan calls for the demolition of the existing mansion and garage, but retention of the existing concrete steps and foundation.

WHAT CAN BE DONE?

Richard and Kim reached out to Emma Howard, Community Development & Planning Director for Council District 13, to discuss potential options. Emma replied that since the house is not currently a designated historic resource, and that a permit application is currently on file, the City does not have the authority to halt permits or process an HCM nomination under State law. The filing of an historic nomination must pre-date the housing application.

I respectfully note that while this is the standing POLICY of the department of City Planning, it is not State LAW. The Cultural Heritage Commission (CHC), as the lead agency in matters related to historic preservation, has the authority to halt demolition and designate the building historic. It is only city policy, and the inaction of the CHC to wield their authority, that OHR refuses to accept a nomination in these cases.

THE LAW VERSUS CITY POLICY

The California Housing Accountability Act (HAA) establishes limitations on a local government’s ability to deny, reduce the density of, or make infeasible a new housing development that is consistent with objective local standards and contributes to meeting the state-wide need for housing. The State Legislature first enacted the HAA in 1982.

SB-330, known as the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, defines previously undefined terms such as objective standards and complete application. Upon submittal of an application and payment of the permit processing fee, a project applicant is allowed to “freeze” the applicable standards while they assemble the rest of the material needed for the submittal. To enact a “freeze,” the applicant must file an HCA Vesting application.

Under the housing code, State Government Code Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 4.2, Section 65913.10 regulates the determination of historic resources. The section consists of three parts. Part (a) reads:

“For purposes of any state or local law, ordinance, or regulation that requires the city or county to determine whether the site of a proposed housing development project is a historic site, the city or county shall make that determination at the time the application for the housing development project is deemed complete.”

This regulation requires the nomination of a building as historic to be done either prior to City Planning ruling that the project application is complete or during the subsequent time provided for appeal. Public appeal is impossible when project applications and demolition notices are not available for immediate review. Part (a) of the Code moves the point of response forward from demolition notification to that of project application.

So far, City Planning policy complies with part (a) of State law but fails to recognize the other parts of the housing law. Section 65913.10 part (c) reads:

“Nothing in this section supersedes, limits, or otherwise modifies the requirements of, or the standards of review pursuant to, Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.“

Section 21000 of the PRC is the California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA. Under CEQA, the CHC has the authority to stay demolition. The intent of the law is to ensure that decisions that impact a potential historic resource are based on valid and complete information. Once torn down, the resource is gone forever.

While City Planning staff often claim that they cannot halt residential projects once the project is approved, Part (c) of State law clearly states that CEQA is the controlling act. Thus, under CEQA, the CHC retains the authority to halt demolition.

And before City Planning responds that project denial will result in substantial fines, that part of their position is a red herring. According to the HAA Technical Assistance Advisory issued by the CA Department of Housing and Community Development, the denial of a compliant housing project is subject to a potential fine, not an absolute fine.

When a project is denied, the project applicant or other affected party may sue, and a judge will weigh the evidence used by the city to deny the project. If the evidence is weak, the judge may order the city to issue the permit. Up to this point, no fine is incurred. Only if the city refuses to reverse their decision after 60 days may the court impose the fine.

So, what about vesting? This project does not require a vesting application, but the subject of vesting is often raised by the city to support their position of inaction. The vesting application is intended to lock in the rules and regulations that apply to the project at the time of filing. Its intent is to stop a city from passing new rules and regulations that seek to block the project.

The CHC, as authorized under CEQA, is not passing a new rule or regulation when it designates a building historic. The CHC, in designating a building historic, is acting upon its authority granted by existing rules and regulations. Thus, the failure of OHR and the CHC to accept a nomination because it might block a project has no standing in law.

And my last point has to do with Los Angeles Administration Code (LAAC) section 22.171.12 which applies to the temporary stay of demolition following the filing of an HCM application.

In the recent Marilyn Monroe case (Brinah Milstein, et al. v. City of Los Angeles), Superior Court Judge James C. Chalfant ruled that “. . . no City Code -- including LAAC section 22.171.12 -- confers a vested right to demolition permits, the impact of a stay on the private interest of a demolition permit holder is comparatively minimal.”

Since the court ruled in favor of the city in designating the Monroe house historic while there was an issued demolition permit in place, it shows how weak the city position is when even the filing of an HCM nomination is denied and they claim that they are just following the law.

CONCLUSION

The issues I raise are of citywide concern, not just to the residents of CD-13 and the Westlake District, but to every citizen interested in historic preservation. OHR is refusing to accept an HCM nomination where a residential building demolition permit is underway.

OHR refusal to accept nominations protects the CHC from having to exercise their authority under CEQA and it grants developers a vested right to their project, a right that does not exist. Recent case law shows that the CHC can designate a building as historic even if a demolition permit has been issued, they just refuse to exercise their authority and support the public.

The public is frustrated, and more so when turning to our city officials for help and we are told “there’s nothing we can do.” I do not believe that. Rather than fight and innovate, these same officials fall back on city policy, a policy that errs via omission, a policy that denies citizens their rights as stakeholders, and a policy that heavily favors developers.

I believe that most people who support preservation do not expect to win every fight and battle, but we do expect our city officials to provide and maintain a level playing field. The public deserves no less since the public must live with the consequences of the project approved by City Planning.

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

The Cultural Heritage Board was created in January 1962 in response to the pending demolition of several historic buildings. Prior to 1985, the Commission operated as an independent Board, and prior to 1980, the Board had sole authority in designating a building an Historical Cultural Monument (HCM). Today, historic preservation in Los Angeles falls under the domain of the Cultural Heritage Commission (CHC) and its Office of Historic Resources (OHR), both part of the Department of City Planning.

THE HCM PROCESS

Anyone can nominate an eligible building, object, site, or structure. The term “eligible” typically means that the building, object, site, or structure is more than 45 years old, and it possesses some elements that either distinguish its period of significance or its relationship to someone or an event of importance.

Nominating a building is a daunting task. You have to collect and compile building permits, photographs, newspaper clipping, and make your case in writing that the building is worthy of nomination. The nomination process can be time-consuming and costly, with no assurance that the nomination will succeed. In the years 2013-2022, a total of 328 HCM applications were accepted by OHR of which 248 resulted in HCM designation and 80 were rejected.

Most people agree that the worst time to prepare and file for a nomination is in response to a posted demolition permit due to the very narrow time window open for filing. Recent changes in the law may make the filing of a nomination in response to demolition a pointless act since the CHC/OHR may approve the HCM but refuse to issue a 180-day stay of demolition. This is the current situation with the William Mellenthin Birdhouse Apartments (HCM #1322).

If you have a deep interest in learning more about the nomination process, here are the seven steps that I’ve adapted from public source documents1. If you’re familiar with the process, feel free to jump ahead.

STEP 1: Upon receipt, the Office of Historic Resources (OHR) reviews the HCM application for completion. An application deemed to be complete must provide sufficient evidence and necessary documentation. If no additional materials are needed, OHR prepares an initial staff report for consideration by the Cultural Heritage Commission (CHC).

STEP 2: CHC holds a public hearing during which it will vote on whether it will formally begin the HCM review process. The applicant may be present to speak and provide a brief photo slideshow. If the CHC votes to take the nomination under consideration, the application process formally begins.

STEP 3: OHR will formally notify the property owner about the nomination. Additionally, a temporary stay will be placed on demolition or substantial alteration permits. The stay remains while the property undergoes review. Note: recent changes in State law prohibits a stay on demolition for certain affordable housing projects if the nomination occurs after the filing of the project application.

STEP 4: OHR evaluates the proposed monument for designation and the CHC members may conduct a site visit. After evaluating the property, OHR prepares a final staff report recommending approval or denial of HCM designation.

STEP 5: CHC holds a second public hearing during which it will vote to approve or deny HCM status. If denied, the designation process ends and the stay on demolition or alteration is lifted. If approved, the nomination is forwarded to the City Council’s Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) Committee.

STEP 6: The PLUM Committee holds an initial hearing to recommend approval or denial for consideration by the full City Council. The nomination may also be referred back to OHR for additional review and investigation.

STEP 7: The City Council grants the property, site, or structure inclusion on the list of HCM’s. Note: City Council, and the PLUM Committee, seldom reject an HCM nomination, but they can reduce or alter the scope of the designation.

APPLICATIONS VERSUS DEMOLITIONS

To address the unsupported claim that the HCM program is used as a weapon against development, we first need to compile some data. Data regarding the number of building demolitions that occur by year and the total number of HCM applications accepted is presented in the table below. I use the data for HCM applications accepted, rather than approved, because it is the acceptance of the application by CHC that triggers the 180-day stay on demolition. The reader interested in a more detailed breakout of the data may refer to the companion report and workbook hosted on the Internet Archive.

The next step is to plot the data and determine if there is a discernable trend. Does the HCM application rate increase, decline, or remain constant as the number of demolitions vary? One can readily note in the graphic below that the HCM trend line is declining. The data shows an inverse relationship between demolition and the application rate.

While the relationship is not strong based on the R2 value, it’s safe to say that a substantial increase in the rate of demolition does not result in an increase in the filing of applications. In fact, application filing does not even keep pace with demolitions. A constant application rate, indicated by a flat horizontal line, would result if the number of applications doubled in response to a doubling in the number of demolitions. Why does the application rate decline?

A simple explanation is that the number of applications prepared and accepted each year is small and fairly constant. Preparing an application requires a substantial effort, and the resources available are limited. Thus, the filing of an application to block development requires a substantial outpouring of concern and energy. The target of the demolition has to evoke enough emotional response for the public to act.

DIGGING DEEPER INTO THE DATA

The trend line graph is based on total HCM applications accepted in a given year. If all of the applications were filed to block demolition, then one could say that the risk of a demolition project being blocked by the HCM program is 2.2 percent (i.e., 328 applications versus 14,603 demolitions). Keep this is mind when you hear people screaming about weaponization and they imply that historic preservation is killing all development.

Further, when an HCM application is filed, the preparer is asked to provide a reason as to why they are seeking designation and the position of the building owner, if known. I’ve gone through five years of applications and compiled the following data:

HCM applications fall into four major categories: owner supported, historic interest, block the threat of development, and monument. Owner support of a nomination is not required for a building to be designated historic. If an application did not provide an answer to threat, and the owner answer was “no,” “unknown,” or not provided, I classified the application as “block threat.” This is the most conservative assumption.

The category of “historic interest” is used to denote applications where the owner position is reported as “no” or “unknown,” and there is no threat of development. The category of “monument” is used to denote HCM applications that do not apply to a building. Monuments include a site of historic or cultural importance, a structure such as a bridge, an object such as a statue or work of art, a park, or a grove of trees.

Data for accepted applications that resulted in HCM designation is readily available in the City Council files. Equivalent data for accepted applications that were later rejected by CHC is not available in City Planning files. One must often rely upon supporting information such as staff reports and public comments to assign the appropriate category.

About 40 percent of all filed applications and 50 percent of all designated HCM’s are obtained with the support of the building owner. HCM designation is an important step for an owner seeking a reduced property tax burden via the Mills Act program. An additional 16 percent of the HCM applications are filed by non-owners with a historical interest in the building. The number of applications filed in response to the threat of development is 21 percent, about one out of five filings.

To calculate the risk of a demolition being blocked due to application filing, we add the “block threat” filings to the applications that were accepted but later rejected and divide this total by demolitions. Since profile data for the rejected applications is not available, we need to include an adjustment factor. The formula used is:

RISK = 100 x (Block Threat Filings + k_bt x Rejected Applications)/Demolitions

Where:
K_bt = 0.25 for low risk
K_bt = 1.0 for high risk

For the low-end estimate of risk, one can assume that the rejected profile is similar to the designated profile. Let’s assume that 25 percent (32 out of 131) of all rejected applications fall under the “block threat” category. For the high-end estimate, the most conservative approach is to assume that all rejected applications were filed to block the threat of development.

As shown in the table above, for the years 2018 to 2022, the percentage of building demolition projects subject to blockage via the HCM program ranged from a low of 0.5 percent to a high of 0.8 percent. With the majority of HCM filings being owner supported, and the number of applications filed each year limited, the cry of program weaponization against city-wide development rings hollow.

CLOSING COMMENTS

There is little justification for the State to impose restrictions on CEQA to such an extent that the effect is to silence the voice of all affected stakeholders. HCM designation is not a hard limit against demolition, but a requirement to allow all affected parties the time needed to find an acceptable alternative to demolition. Why should we continue to lose historic structures to developers who refuse to take a seat at the table and negotiate in good faith?

In addition, I want to pose a counter argument to weaponization. It is the housing development process that is being weaponized against existing communities. Why did City Planning spend so much time and money, our money, to prepare, review, and approve Community Plans if they are now going to be ignored and tossed out for any proposed residential project?

Why does the developer have no obligation to be a good member of the community? There are plenty of “L-shape” shopping centers and derelict buildings a community might welcome having replaced. Just because a developer fails to do their homework before buying a potentially historic building does not mean that the solution is to silence the community. While there is much room to improve CEQA and the existing HCM designation program, making false claims of “weaponization” and taking away the right of the public to a seat at the table is a sign of moral weakness.

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

And why does this matter? Because developing an accurate estimate is the first step in pushing back against the narrative that historic preservation impedes housing development. The State of California keeps passing draconian laws against historic preservation and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) while offering little factual data to support their claims.

The preservation community has allowed the YIMBY (Yes In My Back Yard) movement to control the narrative for way too long. Both sides are guilty of hyperbole, and accurate data is needed if we’re going to get the pendulum to swing back to center. So, let’s get counting. Where do we start?

The Office of Historic Resources (OHR) reports that their HistoricPlaces LA online planning tool contains over 65,000 records of designated and surveyed resources. That’s a lot of records, and in using the online tool one soon discovers that not every record represents a designated (i.e., historic) building.

A record may just be a place holder for the name of a listed, proposed, or eligible district or an Historic Property Overlay Zone (HPOZ). A district or HPOZ is a collection of buildings that share a common architectural style or period of significance. Within the district, each building is identified as either a contributor or non-contributor. Reasons for excluding a building include physical alteration beyond a certain degree or the building may have been constructed outside of the period of significance. All contributors to a district or HPOZ are designated historic.

On an individual basis, there are multiple designation programs that may apply to a given building. Programs include national registration and national landmark status managed by the National Parks Service (NPS), state designation and state landmark status managed by the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), and local designations or placement on the list of Historical Cultural Monuments (HCMs) managed by OHR and the Cultural Heritage Commission. Historic buildings may be nominated and designated by multiple programs. I have not been able to identify an official estimate for the extent of this double-counting and it’s one reason why I started down this rabbit hole.

As previously stated, I’m interested in an estimate of designated buildings. So, for my purposes, I need to exclude all of the historic designations, landmarks, and HCMs that are assigned to parks, places of special events, structures such as dams and bridges, and memorial objects such as fountains and trees. Here's a list of everything I’ve been able to track:

This table is a start, but we’re not done yet. For buildings that make up part of a district, we need to segregate the contributors from the non-contributors. And for every entry, we need to account for duplicate designations. A building that is designated at the National level is automatically added to the State list.

And then there are cases where a local designation has been assigned to a building that is also a National or State designated building or a National, State, or local district contributor. The best one can do is identify the number of buildings within each program and then estimate an adjustment factor to account for duplicate entries. Here’s the next step in the process:

Overall, the number of historic buildings within the City of Los Angeles ranges from 19,956 up to 26,131 depending on the inclusion of non-contributors. Some people feel that non-contributors should be included because they have undergone a formal review process and they are part of the designated district. A non-contributor cannot distract or take away from the historic setting of the district. If it did, the district boundary would be redrawn to exclude this building.

Likewise, the demolition of a non-contributor to allow for the construction of a high-density building can adversely impact the cohesion of the district leading to potential delisting. Thus, non-contributors do have a role to play in maintaining the integrity of a district.

Having finished this exercise, I’ve learned a lot about why an accurate and official estimate isn’t readily available from OHR and their HistoricPlaces LA online inventory. The problem traces back to the SurveyLA program. SurveyLA generated a ton of very valuable data, but the field survey plan contained a potential flaw. This flaw now appears in the HistoricPlaces LA online inventory and users should be warned to independently validate any building status as explained below.

In 2005, the City of Los Angeles entered into a multi-year grant agreement with the J. Paul Getty Trust to complete a citywide historic resources survey. The project, called SurveyLA, was a planning tool which relied upon field surveys to inform planning decisions and support City policy goals and processes. The surveys identified and evaluated potentially historic properties according to the standardized criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, and for local designation as City Historic-Cultural Monuments (HCMs) and Historic Preservation Overlay Zones (HPOZs).

However, the potentially historic resources identified through SurveyLA have no official standing or status. Designation by the City of Los Angeles and nominations to the California or National Registers are separate processes which include expert review, property owner notification, and public hearings. While SurveyLA gathered valuable building data such as construction and ownership history, architectural style, reasons for significance, relevant evaluation criteria, and photographs, the status codes they assigned are only recommendations requiring future action by others.

Digging deeper, let’s look at the actual evaluation criteria used by the SurveyLA field teams. Here are the official codes that were assigned to each property by the survey teams. These codes are used statewide when assessing buildings, except for the codes marked with an asterisk (*) that were specific to the SurveyLA program.

• 3S – Appears eligible for National Register as an individual property through survey evaluation.

• 3CS – Appears eligible for California Register as an individual property through survey evaluation.

• 5S3 – Appears to be individually eligible for local listing or designation through survey evaluation.

• 6L – Property identified through the SurveyLA process as ineligible for National Register, California Register or local designation; may warrant special consideration for local planning.

• 6LQ* – Determined ineligible for local listing or designation as a historic district through a survey process; neighborhood or area may warrant special consideration for local planning. This Status Code is used for Planning Districts.

• 6Z – Found ineligible for National Register, California Register or local designation through survey evaluation.

• 7RQ* – Individual property in a SurveyLA survey – Not evaluated.

• 7SQ* – Individual property assessed for significance in accordance with the SurveyLA Multiple Property Documentation approach but does not meet eligibility standards.

In reviewing the list of status codes, did you notice any codes starting with one (1) or two (2)? A status code of one is assigned to an historic resource that is listed on the National register, making it a designated resource. A status code of two is assigned to an historic resource that is “eligible” for listing on the National register. Resources assigned a status code of 1 (designated) or 2 (eligible) are automatically listed on the California register making them State designated.

And should you point out that SurveyLA did not have the authority to assign a status code of one or two, I will counter that they also did not have the authority to over-ride existing status codes. Field surveyors were to provide an “Initial recommendation” for each surveyed building, but the survey form employed did not provide information as to existing status codes.

Thus, the design of the program created a paradox. The survey team suggests that a building may be eligible for the National or State register (a code of 3S or 3CS), but the building may already be listed on the register. The use of official codes to denote recommendations can lead to confusion, especially since the Survey LA status codes carry no regulatory weight.

And this is where HistoricPlaces LA compounds the problem by referencing the SurveyLA codes as if they are official codes. They are not. A historic resource cannot go from “designated historic” back to “eligible for designation.” This makes no sense. A designated building can be found to be no longer eligible for designation (code 6Z), perhaps due to demolition or heavy alteration, but again, the reported status codes are not official designations.

A similar problem occurs in the SurveyLA studies that did not reassess the buildings. Many studies just reference the status codes from prior surveys conducted by others. The problem compounds when old status codes quoted by Survey LA are requoted in historic assessment reports but assigned the date of the SurveyLA publication. The reader might assume that the reported code is recent, but in fact, it may predate the official code found in the California Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD) for the County of Los Angeles.

If you think I am knocking the HistoricPlaces LA online tool, I’m not. My intent is to provide a warning to the user. I have talked to OHR staff about this issue, and they are working hard to incorporate the State register data from the BERD.

Having worked with the BERD data files myself for the last few weeks, I don’t envy OHR staff and their job ahead. Extracting data from the BERD files is difficult based on how the data was set up and entered into the files made available to the public. And, in working with the HistoricPlaces LA online tool, I believe it has tremendous value once the bugs are resolved in the under-lying data.

The Internet Archive is host to my Historic Building Inventory for the City of Los Angeles in both pdf and Excel format. The inventory is a compilation of data from multiple sources about every national, state, and local district, building, landmark, and monument located in the city. The pdf version is the easiest to view because no file download is required. The pdf version is also the least interactive, because you cannot access the hyperlinks.

The Excel workbook provides a fast and easy way to access data regarding location, configuration, and other preservation data for a designated resource. Hyperlinks are provided to specific pages on the HistoricPlaces LA website, to the national register nomination forms located on the NPS and NARA websites, and to the City Council files for approved Historic Cultural Monuments.

Please let me know if you find this workbook useful. My next effort is a deep dive into the CHC and the HCM process. And now back down the rabbit hole.

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

But, at the same time, a determined group of tenants and preservationists were able to push a Historic Cultural Monument (HCM) nomination through the Cultural Heritage Commission (CHC). The HCM nomination stayed the demolition permit and the CHC approved the nomination prior to the completion of the project application. As of now, everyone is looking at City Planning as to how they plan to resolve the pending conflict.

The courtyard complex in question are the William Mellenthin birdhouse apartments located at 5922-5930 N Buffalo Avenue. Mellenthin designed over 3,000 single family homes across Los Angeles, but only a handful of multi-family homes. A few of these multi-family homes have been identified, and except for this one in Van Nuys, all have been demolished.

Described in an online article by the Los Angeles Conservancy, the Birdhouse Apartments are discribed as1:

At the heart of this matter is the timeline of events and the determination of when an HCM nomination is officially adopted. I have reviewed the available online records and present a list of major dates and actions as follows:

1. Aug 22, 2024 - Project applicant files ePlan with LADBS for demolition

2. Sept 24, 2024 - OHR deems the HCM application complete; LADBS is notified to place demolition on hold

3. Oct 17, 2024 - CHC hearing to review HCM Nomination

4. Nov 1, 2024 - Project applicant files project application with City Planning

5. Dec 12, 2024 - CHC committee issues determination letter in support of HCM

6. Feb 6, 2025 - CHC holds hearing, the HCM nomination is approved

7. Mar 5, 2025 - City Planning deems the project application complete

8. Mar 16, 2025 - City Planning approves the project plans

9. Apr 8, 2025 - PLUM Committee approves HCM designation

10. Apr 30, 2025 - City Council approves HCM designation

As of today (May 20, 2025), the demolition permit is still on hold. The project applicant is calling for the restart of their project in accordance with the State housing law. The applicable section is found in Section 65913.10 (a):

The project application was deemed complete by City Planning on March 5th. City Council approved the HCM nomination on April 30th. Since the project application was approved prior to the approval of the HCM designation, the historic status of the building should not impact the proposed project. But . . .

The project applicants position assumes that the historic designation is contingent upon City Council approval. This is where we have to dig into the weeds and look beyond subsection (a). Section 65913.10 (c)(1) states:

Section 21000 of the Public Resources Code is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As stated in subsection (c)(1), the Housing Act cannot negate or override CEQA. In addition, CEQA has a section specifically related to the special review of housing projects.

A housing project that meets all of the listed criteria qualifies for an exemption from this division. One such criteria is specified in Section 21599.21 (g) “The project does not have a significant effect on historical resources pursuant to Section 21084.1.” Obviously, the demolition of a historic resource is a significant impact. Thus, the proposed project does not comply with the exemption criteria.

Now, we also need to look at Section 21084.1 which addresses the definition of a historic resource. For California, inclusion in, or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources qualifies the resource as historic. In addition, the section goes on to state:

Notice, Section 21084.1 does not use the term “city or county” as referenced in the State housing law. CEQA specifically states “lead agency.” The Cultural Heritage Commission, operating under the Planning Department, is the official lead agency for the determination of historic resources.

The CHC, as lead agency, designated the apartment complex to be an historic resource on Feb 6th, one month prior to City Planning ruling the project application complete. Since City Council is not the lead agency under CEQA, their approval on April 30th is just a formality for registering the historic resource on the city list.

Officially, City Planning has taken a limited position as to the processing of a project application under the housing act versus the determination of historic designation under CEQA. On page 15 of their inter-departmental guidance document to LADBS, it is stated2:

Notice that City Planning guidance does not specify what happens when the HCM designation occurs prior to completion of the project application. Their guidance only addresses a scenario where the designation occurs after the project application is found to be complete.

Clearly, City Planning guidance is to stop processing the HCM nomination once the project application is deemed complete. But, in the current case, we have the HCM nomination approved by the CHC prior to the completion of the project application and City Council approval of the HCM occurring after. Can we use the actions taken by City Planning to infer which entity determines the nomination?

1. Assume that the processing of the HCM nomination is not complete until approved by City Council. If this statement is correct, then the HCM nomination should not have gone on to PLUM or the City Council since the completion of the project application predates these events. City Planning would not be following their own guidance.

2. Assume City Planning processing of the HCM nomination ended with the CHC approval vote taken on Feb 6th, one month prior to City Planning ruling the application complete. The presentations made to PLUM and City Council must not represent an ongoing "processing" of the nomination since all processing should have ended when the project application was deemed complete.

It will be interesting to see the pathway forward taken by City Planning. Will they default to the Housing Act and claim that their hands are tied? Will they use their authority as lead agency to require the project applicant to assess the impact of their project on the historic resource? One pathway leads to the public being silenced and the definite destruction of the resource. The other pathway leads to continued public involvement and a chance to consider project alternatives such as adaptive reuse.

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

The Mills Act Historical Property Contract program is the leading financial incentive for historic preservation within the city and the state. The program consists of a contractual agreement between the City of Los Angeles and the owner of a historic building. The contract provides the owner a potential reduction in property taxes in exchange for costs incurred with the restoration and rehabilitation of the building. The contracts are established for a minimum term of 10 years, are automatically renewed annually, and are transferable to new owners if a property is sold.

CURRENT PROGRAM STATUS

Since 2020, the City of Los Angeles has accepted no new contracts while an assessment of the program is underway. A draft assessment report was issued in June 2022 followed by the solicitation of public comment. The assessment report called for capping the total number of active contracts based on limiting the loss of tax revenue to the city and staff availability.

The public response to the report was mostly negative. The public did not support limiting contract terms to 20 years and did not support the non-renewal of existing contracts. The public did support the collection of contract fees to fund staffing, an increase in enforcement, and the termination of non-compliant contracts. In effect, the public wants and supports a well thought out and self-sustaining program, not one ham-strung by preconceived and self-imposed limitations.

THE REVISED ASSESSMENT REPORT

Now, more than two years after releasing the findings of public comment, a revised assessment report has been released for public review and consideration by the Cultural Heritage Commission (CHC). The public has until 23 May 2025 to provide comments to City Planning via online submission. Comments may also be provided during the CHC review meeting to be held at 10 am on 24 April 2025 and at an evening workshop starting at 6 pm to be held via Zoom on 28 April 2025.

In my view, the revised report is an improvement over the draft report in that it drops some of the self-imposed limitations that limited the program. Gone is the fixed cap on the total number of contracts. Also gone is the imposed limitation on lost tax revenue. Per the revised report, City Planning proposes the following administrative changes and amendments to the Mills Act Ordinance:

• Establish a mechanism to collect the approved contract maintenance fee and track fee revenues

• Manage contract data more effectively and provide greater transparency about the program to the public

• Implement stronger contract compliance and enforcement-related provisions

• Encourage participation from geographically underserved communities through outreach and the prioritization of applications for new contracts for properties located in lower resource areas

• Create more capacity in the program through the non-renewal of existing contracts based on geographic equity considerations or length of time a contract has been in effect

• Reassess the program on a regular basis and communicate annually with contract holders to confirm contact information

• Eliminate the program-wide annual threshold of the City’s unrealized property tax revenue

• Amend the existing program fee structure and recover administrative costs for processing noncompliant and contract cancellation cases

• Expand participation in the program by broadening eligibility requirements to achieve a more geographically equitable distribution of benefits

• Refine and refocus existing eligibility criteria and priorities for new contract applications.

Overall, I agree with the proposed program amendments except for the creation of capacity via contract non-renewal. The concept of “capacity” is a throwback to the self-imposed limitation of available staff. If the program has a reasonable fee structure to support staffing, and the fees are collected, then the number of hired staff should rise and fall to match the required workload.

I also contend that if the value of the contract diminishes over time (as stated in the assessment report), and if the contact holder must pay a non-trivial annual fee to maintain the contract, then the contract holders will voluntarily opt out as the cost of maintaining the contract exceeds benefit. There is no need for the City to force contract holders out via the non-renewal process.

In addition, the assessment report may very well be wrong in assuming that long-held contracts have no value. A Mills Act contract can have a large value to a future owner. Assessment data lists 108 properties, with a total enrolled value of $650 million, that derive no tax benefit. The current market value of these buildings is conservatively estimated to be $1.63 billion1.

The annual property tax on $1.63 billion in market value is $16.3 million and the existing Mills Act contracts could yield a savings of 65 percent based on the average of “high” and “very high” savings shown in the report data. Thus, future savings amount to $10.6 million per year or $98,000 per building. While the current owner may not derive benefit with regards to property tax, a Mills Act contract is a tangible asset with value to a future owner. Thus, I would expect a contract holder to take legal action against the City should the City issue a non-renewal notice without just cause.

BENEFIT TO THE PUBLIC

The public derives much benefit from the Mills Act program, benefit that is not addressed in the assessment report. The draft report only focused on the lost tax revenue to the city. The study did not address the economic multiplier effect and other less tangible benefits.

Data from the LA Conservancy report “Preservation Positive” reports that $11.7 million per year is spent in the City of Los Angeles on historic preservation. For a $2.2 million dollar investment in the form of foregone tax revenue, each foregone tax dollar generates $5.30 in local spending that goes directly towards labor, materials, permit fees, taxes, etc. The actual level of owner spending is much greater than $11.7 million since this estimate only includes permitted projects. General building maintenance is not included.

If you include general maintenance, the total amount spent per year increases to $37.4 million per year. My estimate of $25.7 million per year for general maintenance is based on the assessed value of all buildings with contracts, a building adjustment factor by property type to exclude land value, and a maintenance cost factor of 1 percent for buildings in good condition. For buildings in poor condition, the maintenance cost factor could be as high as 4 percent.

Taken together, property owners spend more than $37.4 million per year on building maintenance and preservation. This amount of spending is 17 times more than the amount of tax revenue the city foregoes. Benefits include a safer and well-maintained home for tenants, increased employment for workers with skills related to historic preservation, and the purchase and use of higher-grade materials. The Mills Act is a very cost-effective way to promote public safety, skilled job creation, and infrastructure investment.

While some people might discount the inclusion of general maintenance, all building maintenance is important when it comes to historic buildings. A leaking roof can result in structural damage which can lead to degradation of historic and character-defining features.

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

Read up and speak up! You should read the revised assessment report and review the program Fact Sheet to get familiar with the program changes. I support the program revisions except for the non-renewal of existing contracts. You might disagree with me or take exception to the ways in which the program seeks to improve equity (something I did not address in this post).

Disagreement is fine, but the one universal point we should all make is that City Planning should not continue to drag out this process. The Mills Act Update presented to the CHC in Dec 2022 expected the second phase of outreach (where we are now) to occur in March 2023 with program reactivation by Jan 2024. The schedule is more than 2 years behind, and we should not have to wait another 2 years while the consultants simply repackage public comments.

You can provide your comments directly to City Planning via their online portal up to 23 May 2025. On 24 April 2025, City Planning will present the revised program to the Cultural Heritage Commission at their 10 am meeting. You may attend the meeting and provide comments in person or online via Zoom. City Planning will also hold a 6 pm workshop for the public via Zoom to be held on 28 April 2025.

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

The Office of City Clerk maintains a treasure trove of records and documents that help shine a light on our past.  From the various Board and Commission meeting minutes to the City Council files dating back to the cities’ founding, one never knows what you’ll find once you take that first step down that rabbit hole.

Okay, here you go. But be warned, the sketchbook consists of 6 volumes and more than 1,200 sketches published in a coffee table format. It’s easy to get lost without a roadmap. After looking at the Sketchbook, I hope you’ll return and read a little bit of the history behind its preparation.

BACKGROUND

My story begins about 8 years ago when I first became acquainted with Don Ray and his Endangered History Project.  Don's project looks to promote the preservation of media in all its many forms.  Don also runs a Facebook page entitled "The Spy of Shadow Hills."  The “spy” is August Furst, the owner of a famous German restaurant on Sunland Blvd in Shadow Hills.

August Furst’s restaurant, the Old Vienna Gardens, was rumored to be a hangout for Nazi spies just prior to the US entry into World War II.  There were FBI reports and rumors, crazy rumors, such as armed guards patrolling the hills.  Even after the war, rumors continued that Hitler had visited the hilltop retreat.  We spent days researching the Leon Lewis files at CSUN to no avail.  Leon Lewis ran a local ring of spies who had heavily infiltrated the German American Bund and other local Unamerican organizations.  Dig as we might, nothing confirmed the rumors.

So, if August Furst wasn’t a spy, might the rumors of “armed guards” be due to a case of mistaken identity?  Might the reported guards be associated with a neighboring site?  One immediate neighbor was Minnie Barton, the first female probation officer in the Los Angeles Police Department.  She owned a 13-acre camp adjacent to the restaurant where she housed destitute women.  She also founded the Big Sister League who operated a training home for women south of downtown and a home for women with children in Boyle Heights known as the Bide-a-wee Home.

We ventured to the City of Los Angeles Archive over the course of several months to research the Police Commission Board meeting minutes.  Reviewing the Board minutes is a slow process because one must review each large bound book page by page.  There is no available index or finding aid.  Content varies from very scant to highly detailed depending on the preference of the Commission President.  If we were lucky, the entry would refer to a City Council file and that file might contain a copy of an official Police Department report.  So many entries caught our eye, each a potential item worthy of additional research. Maybe one day I’ll publish an abridged index to the minutes.

We were hoping to find something, anything, that might link the rumors against August Furst to the indigent camp for women run by Minnie Barton.  Interestingly, we found that Minnie Barton had to withstand a barrage of complaints from the locals when she first opened her camp.  We eventually found the connection, but it would be found a few months later in the Leon Lewis collection.  One of his spies had infiltrated the Ku Klux Klan and they had a military unit that trained on the hill right around the same time of the FBI complaints.  So, we found our armed guards, and our spy, but neither had anything to do with August Furst.

THE WPA SKETCHES

Helping us sort through this pile of city history was city archivist Mike Holland.  Mike is always ready to help researchers find the information they seek.  It was during one of our visits that we asked Mike if the city might hold a photo of the Minnie Barton home for married women in Boyle Heights.  Mike did not think so, but it might appear among the WPA city sketches.  Our immediate reaction was "What WPA city sketches?"

That is when Mike told us the story about the WPA and how they assisted the Los Angeles City Planning Department in constructing a large-scale model of the city.  A portion of the model resides in the basement of the Natural History Museum.  Prior to building the model, architects went out into the field and sketched the city block by block.  Many of the sketches provide an overhead view of each block including side elevation.  We were welcomed to look at the sketches, but we were warned that they weren't organized and there was no available inventory.

So, out comes several boxes of sketches and we start to dig in.  It's tough going since they are not neatly organized and we're not even sure if the home was within the scope of the model.  The home sat on Pleasant St, just east of the 5 Freeway.  We know that the model on display at the History Museum doesn't go that far east, but might we get lucky?

I gave up after an hour, but Don continued.  And then he found it.  There was the drawing of the Bide-a-wee Home in its 1940 setting.  A line went right across the backside of the building showing the "end of model."  If the home sat one more block over to the east, we would have found nothing.  But there it was for us to enjoy some 80 years later.

It was right then and there that we decided that the WPA sketches were too great an asset to be buried away in an archive.  In addition, we were sure that there were many other discoveries to be made.  After all, the physical model on display at the Natural History Museum only represents 20 percent of what was built.  And no index to the drawings existed.  We were very lucky that we found the Bide-a-wee Home, but short of viewing each sketch one by one, how would others find a given building?  A plan slowly came together.

PROCESSING THE SKETCHES

Overall, the WPA sketch collection consists of more than 1,200 sketches, many of which cover portions of the model that are either lost or not on display.  Don started the effort by taking digital photos of the collection.  Getting a clear shot of each sketch is difficult because many have been laminated (a once common preservation practice).  The lamination easily reflects light resulting in glare.  Efforts to reduce glare included the use of portable side lights or shooting the sketch on the floor, under a table, to block overhead light.

The next task was to create a searchable archive.  Each image file was renamed according to sector letter and block number.  There are 24 sectors arranged in a 4 x 6 grid.  The organized images were then processed to correct for distortion and skew, cropped to remove any extraneous image, and standardized as to size.

In processing the sketches, care was taken to improve the image while not affecting the basic content of the image.  The WPA sketches are a work product, heavily used in the creation of the model and were never intended for publication.  As such, most of the sketches exhibit ink stains, soiling, pin holes, adhesive residue, fading, and physical damage such as rips and tears.

With all the sketches processed, it was apparent that some type of finding aid would be required.  A master map was created based on planning maps from WPA surveys conducted in the mid to late 1930’s.  The red 4 x 6 grid represents the extent of the original model that was constructed by the WPA.  The black grid represents the extent of the model currently on display.

The WPA Sketchbook consists of six volumes, each volume representing one row of the 4 x 6 grid. Each volume contains a high resolution image of each section to aid in the search for a given building. Users should be aware that the actual sector lines are not straight as shown but often zig-zag to follow the block. If the building of interest is located near the edge of a sector, check out the adjacent sectors to be sure that the sketch does not exist.

HISTORY OF THE MODEL

President Roosevelt created the United States Works Progress Administration (WPA), later known as the Work Projects Administration, in May 1935 in response to the Great Depression.  During its operation over the next 8 years, about 8.5 million individuals were employed, helping nearly one-fourth of all families in the United States. Much of the employment centered around civic improvement, constructing numerous buildings, roads, airports, water distribution, and sewerage collection facilities.  Many people were employed in the fields of medicine, education, music, arts, and writing.

To support the improvement of city infrastructure, the WPA assisted several cities in creating large scale models of their downtown regions.  These scale models were an improvement over the use of flat maps since city planners could see how proposed changes impacted the existing buildings and topography.

Frank Ostronic, City of Los Angeles Planning Department draftsman and model maker, oversaw the local WPA crew of draftsmen, architects, landscape architects, model makers, and artists.  Work began in 1938 with project planning followed by the collection of field sketches and photographs of all existing buildings in downtown Los Angeles.  The WPA crew completed the model by mid-1941.

Overall, the constructed model was 24 feet square and built to a scale of 1 inch to 50-feet.  The modeled area included downtown, extending from Chinatown on the north, Boyle Ave on the east, Adams Blvd on the south, and Bonnie Brae St near Alvarado Blvd on the west.  The model consisted of twenty-four sections labeled A through X, laid out in a 4 x 6 grid.

For many years, the finished model resided on the 26^th floor of City Hall.  Then, in 1956, the city put out a call for any organization to take the model for free provided they would set it up at a new location for public display.  The city considered the model to be obsolete and the department needed space.  Some Planning Department staff members worked hard to preserve the model and find it a home.  But, with no takers coming forward, the city moved the model to a warehouse for storage.

Fifteen years later the model was still sitting in storage.  The Los Angeles Times ran an article with photos showing the model of City Hall, but the caption stated that the building was missing.  The article noted that the debate over preservation versus disposal continued with no resolution.  As a side note, legend is that some retiring City employees received buildings as a memento of their time with the city.

Eventually, the city donated the model to the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History for use in a major display of California history.  The display opened in Lando Hall, in 1980, following six years of preparation.  Museum staff restored the model and placed on display an 8 ½- foot x 14 ½-foot section surrounding a rebuilt City Hall.

Today, the model sits on display at the Natural History Museum in Kevin Sharer Hall as part of the permanent exhibit Becoming Los Angeles.  The model resides in a state-of-the art glass case that allows a full 360° view while maintaining a climate-controlled environment.  The 10-ft x 13-ft horizontal glass case has an integrated sliding platform mechanism that allows access to the model for care and maintenance.

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

The current Downtown ARO, which serves as the basis for the Citywide ARO, has created more than 12,000 housing units during its first 15 years in effect.  Adaptive reuse allows developers to convert under-utilized commercial buildings into highly needed residential units.  The vacancy rate for commercial buildings throughout the city is at an all time high of 26 percent.  The reuse of vacant office space to provide residential space could provide up to 50,000 dwelling units.

As quoted in a 23 May 2023 press release for the Citywide ARO, the Director of Planning Vince Bertoni said:

“Reuse of buildings is a sustainable practice that conserves many of the resources used to build them, reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with ground-up construction.  By mixing commercial and residential uses and bringing residents and visitors close to jobs and services, conversions can also play a part in improving air quality and reducing the numbers of vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled.”

The new Citywide ARO will expand the existing adaptive reuse program, remove process barriers, and streamline the conversion process.  The Citywide ARO will also allow more flexibility for the conversion to residential uses and include more recently constructed buildings.  Downtown, Chinatown, Lincoln Heights, and Hollywood, which now have their own ARO’s, are designated as subareas in the new ordinance.

The ordinance will establish a “by-right” approval process for existing structures that are at least 15 years old.  The current ARO’s only apply to buildings that were built prior to the fixed date of 1 July 1974.  For buildings between 5 and 15 years old, an adaptive reuse project will remain subject to the Zoning Administrator Conditional Use procedure.

I support the Citywide ARO, but I do have reservations when it comes to protecting historic buildings and resources, and buildings that are potentially historic.  The Department of City Planning, based on my experience with the Hollywood Community Plan Update, may report that their actions are protective of historic buildings even when no such protections are in place.  A generic reference to protection is not the same as having a well-defined and comprehensive program and policy already in place.

THE SWITCH FROM “ELIGIBLE” TO “DESIGNATED”

City Planning has prepared a 5-page factsheet for the Citywide ARO program that was released March 2024.  Since the 1^st draft of the program was released May 2023 and the 2^nd draft was released in June, the factsheet is out of date and does not reflect the current draft version.  For example, the factsheet states:

Wow, there’s a lot to unpack here.  The term “Eligible Historic Resource” is used in the initial draft but dropped from the revised draft.  The term “eligible,” along with reference to HistoricPlacesLA, leaves one with the impression that the Citywide ARO will provide some level of protection for a building that “might” be historic but not yet assessed and designated.

However, the most recent draft of the Citywide ARO replaces the term “Eligible” with the term “Designated.”  This change in term shifts the focus of the ordinance away from the protection of buildings that might be historic to only protecting those buildings already identified as historic.  In the city, there are slightly more than 1,300 designated historic buildings, a few percent of the total number of potentially historic buildings, which represent only a few percent of the total number of buildings.

I strongly urge City Planning to revert the Citywide ARO to use of the term eligible historic resource.  All buildings more than 45 years old slated for adaptive reuse (or demolition) should be reviewed by the Office of Historic Resources (OHR) to determine the need for historic assessment.  The Citywide ARO needs to provide clear and transparent directive to all stakeholders (i.e., project applicant, City Planning, the Department of Building and Safety, and the public) as to how historic assessments are to be conducted, reviewed, and approved.

THE DELETION OF LOCAL REFERENCES

The factsheet references the HistoricPlacesLA (HPLA) program, but this program is not referenced in the most recent ARO draft.  I assume that HPLA will be used in the assessment process, but this is an assumption.  I also have concerns as to reliance upon the HPLA database as the sole source of historic information since it is derived from SurveyLA and is currently incomplete.

SurveyLA was limited to windshield surveys.  No effort was made to identify buildings hidden from view.  Buildings that had previously been surveyed by the Community Redevelopment Agency were specifically excluded.  The assessment of attributes such as cultural or community significance was significantly limited.  Thus, programs like SurveyLA and HPLA may be a good starting point, but the ARO fails to address even their use and how the protection of potential historic resources can be insured.

The 2^nd draft of the ARO also drops the reference to specific local designation programs such as the City of Los Angeles List of Historic Cultural Monuments.  The ARO does state “including but not limited to,“ in reference to local, state, and federal designation programs, but City Planning often ignores such open-ended qualifiers.  If a specific requirement is not presented as a check-list action, the requirement is most often ignored or left to the project applicant.

No effort is made to include interested stakeholders such as neighborhood councils, preservation groups, and the public in the assessment effort.  Public involvement is critical, especially since City Planning is moving towards more “by right” projects which bypasses all public involvement in the project.

WHAT ABOUT STANDARDS?

Returning to the factsheet statement presented above, consider the line “. . . sets forth procedures for their rehabilitation consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.”  While this is a common requirement when dealing with an historic building, City Planning seldom follows the Federal standard, to its full extent.

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (36 CFR Part 68) consists of four treatment standards: Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reconstruction.  Adaptive reuse falls under the heading of Rehabilitation. Let me list a few requirements of the Standard and how the draft ARO can be at odds:

It is also important to point out the differences between State and Federal law with respect to impact analysis.  When one claims that they comply with the Federal Standard for the Treatment of Historic Properties, it is implied that they also comply with the Federal standard for assessing project impact.  The Federal treatment standard specifies distinct impacts to avoid, so it only makes sense that the assessment of these impacts also follows Federal guidance.  Such is not the case with City Planning.

City Planning follows the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, even when the Federal Standard should apply (Hollywood Boulevard is a National Historic District).  Under CEQA, changes and modifications to a historic resource are not allowed if the extent of change results in a significant impact that cannot be mitigated.  Significance is defined as loss of historic status.  In effect, if historic status is not impacted, the changes are allowed.  Under CEQA, demolition of non-contributors within a historic district is taken to be acceptable on the premise that the status of the historic contributors is not impacted.  No consideration is given to the impact to the district as a district.

However, the Federal Standard is based on adverse effect, not significant impact.  An adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association.  Some examples of adverse effects on historic properties include, but are not limited to:

• Physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the property.

• Alteration of a property that is not consistent with the Secretary’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (36 CFR Part 68) and applicable guidelines.

• Removal of the property from its historic location.

• Change of the character of the property’s use or of physical features within the property’s setting that contribute to its historic significance.

• Introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property’s significant historic features.

• Neglect of a property which causes its deterioration.

With reference to historic districts, a district is a collection of historic contributors that convey a sense and feel for a specific period of significance.  Part of that sense and feel is the setting.

While a non-contributor does not contribute to the historic setting, it also must not destroy or interfere with the setting either.  When the number, size, and massing of the non-contributors exceeds that of the contributors, the district has been adversely impacted and may lose its historic status.  The intrusion of non-contributors results in a loss of historic focus.

Imagine a row of 1910 craftsman single family homes lined up along a residential street.  At some point in time, one of the homes was replaced by a two-story 1960 apartment building.  The building sits back from the property line so that its presence is barely noticeable.

Walking down the street, you may not notice the apartment building except for its 2^nd floor sticking up above the other roofs.  This non-contributor does not seriously detract from the setting, you still get a sense and feel of how the neighborhood looked back in 1910.

Now suppose the apartment building is torn down and replaced by a 6 story, high-density, residential complex.  The new building looms several stories over the houses.  The front of the building sits a few feet back from the sidewalk.  The continuity of the front lawns is broken by the intrusion of the building into the yard space.

Walking down the street, you see a few historic houses before, and a few historic houses after, this massive intruder.  The visual impact of this new building dominates the setting and grabs your attention.  Allow for a few more non-contributors to be replaced with massive buildings and the district may no longer qualify as historic.

IN CONCLUSION

Adaptive Reuse is a great way to breathe new life into old buildings, but it must be done with sensitivity and respect to the building and surrounding community.  Each building represents a unique set of challenges, challenges that are difficult to distill down into a simple check-list approach that City Planning is adopting.

The move to “by right” projects, with its elimination of public input, is a major threat to historic and potentially historic buildings.  I am certain that viable protective procedures can be put in place that will minimally affect housing construction, but I am much less sure that City Planning and the Mayor have the interest.

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

Since few citizens can invest the time and effort required to maintain a deep and current knowledge of all the various regulations out there, the best one can do is to learn the fundamental concepts of the law and quiz their representatives for more detail.  This is how I got here, initially raising questions about the demolition of the Sears building in East Hollywood and the pending demolition of the Silver Platter Bar in the Westlake area.  The answers I received from those who should know did not fully agree with what I already knew, and that led to more digging and this post.

Environmental Quality and Housing Accountability

When it comes to the preservation of historic resources, the primary law is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Thanks to CEQA, citizens like you and me have a say in the size and type of projects that may impact our community.  CEQA also has well defined rules as to what goes into the determination of an historic resource.  The local agency tasked with making the determination is the Los Angeles Department of City Planning Cultural Heritage Commission (CHC) and the Office of Historic Resources (OHR).  If the CHC approves a nomination, it then goes to the Los Angeles City Council for approval.

The California Housing Accountability Act (HAA) establishes limitations on a local government’s ability to deny, reduce the density of, or make infeasible a new housing development that is consistent with objective local standards and contributes to meeting the state-wide need for housing.  The State Legislature first enacted the HAA in 1982.  Recent bills amending the HAA include:

• Senate Bill (SB) 167 (2017) and Assembly Bill (AB) 678 (2017) – Strengthens the HAA by increasing the documentation necessary, and the standard of proof required, for a local agency to legally defend its denial of a low-to-moderate-income housing development project.  Requires the courts to impose a fine of $10,000 or more per unit on local agencies that fail to legally defend their rejection of an affordable housing project.

• AB 1515 (2017) – Establishes a reasonable person standard for determining conformance with local land use requirements.

• AB 3194 (2018) – Expands the meaning of zoning consistency to include projects that are consistent with general plan designations, but not zoning designation on a site if that zone is inconsistent with the general plan.

• SB 330 (2019) – Defines previously undefined terms such as objective standards and complete application.  Upon submittal of an application and payment of processing fee, a project applicant “freezes” the applicable standards to their project while they assemble the rest of the material needed for a full application submittal.  SB 330 is also known as the Housing Crisis Act of 2019.

Historic Designation and Housing Project Applications

Buried within the State Government Code Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 4.2, is Section 65913.10 which regulates the determination of historic resources under the housing code.  The section consists of three parts.  Part (a) reads:

What this regulation means is that the opportunity to nominate a building as historic must be done either prior to City Planning ruling that the project application is complete or during the subsequent time allowed for appeal.  Public appeal can be difficult when City Planning delays posting the applicable documents on their website.  People concerned about the loss of a potential historic resource expect to be able to file an appeal following demolition notification.  Part (a) of the Code moves the point of response forward from demolition notification to project application.

The Code also specifies that the term “deemed complete” means that the application has met all requirements specified in a relevant list that is available at the time the application was submitted.  If City Planning does not request information regarding historic status, the application cannot be ruled incomplete because the information was not provided. The law is designed to ensure that the project applicant knows all of the requirements prior to filing.

City Planning has 30 days to deem the application complete unless there are specific errors and omissions.  Correction of the application restarts the 30-day clock.  Once deemed complete, there is a fixed amount of time for the public to appeal.  Unlike CEQA, one may not appeal any issue that is outside the scope of the relevant list.  The HAA is intended to speed the permitting process by shutting down repeated appeals for an expanding list of complaints.

Historic Designation Under the HAA

Often, the City of Los Angeles will deny an appeal because it is submitted too late.  This is the current situation with the Silver Platter Bar in the Westlake area.  The assessment report found that the building was not historic based on its period of significance.  The assessment report was based on physical appearance only.  The report failed to address the cultural significance of this “safe haven” bar to the LGBTQ and Latin communities.  Now, in response to calls for halting the pending demolition, the Council District office claims they can do nothing because the project has been approved and the appeal period has passed.

From what I see, it’s not that the city can do nothing, it’s that city staff are not fully informed about the law.  The city complies with Section 65913.10 (a) but fails to recognize the other parts of the law.  Recall, I said there were three parts to Section 65913.10.  Part (c) reads:

Section 21000 of the PRC is the California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA.  Under CEQA, the Cultural Heritage Commission has the authority to stay demolition when new information is discovered that may affect the finding of a prior assessment report.  The intent of the law is to ensure that decisions that impact a potential historic resource are based on valid and complete information.  Once torn down, the resource is gone forever.

While city staff often argue that they cannot halt a residential project once the project is approved due to the HAA, Part (c) clearly states that CEQA is the controlling act.  Thus, under CEQA, the CHC has the authority to halt demolition.  Halting demolition to reassess historic designation is not a project denial under the HAA, it is an exercise of CHC authority under CEQA.

Historic Resource Determination

Some cities have implemented an “Historic Resource Determination (HRD) Form” that requires the applicant to assess the historic status of any existing resource on the project site slated for demolition.  The form is a simplified checklist that is submitted with the application package.

The checklist identifies six different categories of historic resource ranging from National, State, or local landmark, a resource identified in a historic resources survey and eligible for listing in the State register, or any building, structure, or permanently located object that has been in existence for at least 50 years (Los Angeles often uses 45 years to be conservative).

The HRD form from the City of Los Altos CA goes even further by clearly informing the project applicant about the determination process.  Any building or structure more than 50 years old is assumed to be historic unless proven otherwise.  An assessment, conducted by a qualified professional, must be submitted with the application.  Within 30 days of receipt, the Planning Director, or designee, shall determine if the resource is historically or culturally significant.

Should the applicant not receive a determination of historic significance at the time the application is deemed complete, the lack of determination shall constitute an implied and conclusive finding that the site is historic.  The HRD form clearly alerts the applicant that the determination of an historic resource under the HAA does not supersede, limit, or otherwise modify the requirements of CEQA.  In addition:

It is unclear to me as to what extent City Planning employs an HRD form to address potential historic resources.  I was not able to find one on their website.  If you want to see the more than 300 application forms that City Planning makes available to the public, you can find them here. Clearly, if City Planning employed such an HRD form, and they followed a similar determination process, then housing development would not pose a threat to potentially historic resources.

But What About the Fines?

A common and typical response I hear from city officials when asked to halt a project so that a proper historic assessment can be performed is “We cannot stop the project now, it’s been approved.  If we deny the project, we’ll be fined $10,000 or more for every housing unit denied.”  A little melodramatic, and not really the full story.

According to the HAA Technical Assistance Advisory issued by the CA Department of Housing and Community Development, the denial of a compliant housing project is subject to a potential fine.  Potential fine, not an absolute fine.  When a housing project is denied, the project applicant or other affected party may sue and take the city to court.

In court, the judge will determine the validity of the evidence used by the city to deny the project.  If the city can defend their action, the case is dismissed.  If the city does not defend their action, the judge will order the project to be approved.  Up to this point, no fine is incurred.  Only if the city refuses to reverse their decision after 60 days may the court impose the fine.  The fine is not due to the denial of the project, it is due to the city failing to comply with the court order.

The imposition of fines was added to the HAA to prevent small towns and cities from denying residential projects that they felt were out of scale or out of place with the local community.  Even when the project fully complied with the zoning code, the project was denied with no valid reason.

The intent of the HAA is to force all cities in California to bear their fair share when it comes to building new housing.  It is not the intent of the HAA that new residential housing create an undue burden on historic resources.  The HAA does not negate CEQA when it comes to the issue of historic designation.

Concluding Remarks

If I am wrong in my assessment, then I welcome the chance to be corrected.  I want to know the specific sections of the law, or specific court rulings, that render my view incorrect.  But, if I am correct, and I believe that I am, then City Planning should follow the law and ensure that the public continues to have a right to request a stay of demolition when there is a concern over the adequacy of the historic determination.

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

Today, in response to the perceived housing shortage, zoning laws are being weaponized, resulting in the destruction of the very homes the law was intended to protect.  Both single family homes and multi-family homes such as duplexes and bungalow courts (many of which are under rent control) are being torn down to make way for high-density housing.  Little of this new housing is truly affordable. Tenants are being forced out under the false premise that developers can solve the supply shortage if only given enough incentive.  Sadly, the incentive is never enough.

I’ve talked about the history of zoning in Los Angeles in a prior three-part post.  Today, I want to dig a little deeper into the earliest days of zoning.  Why were zoning laws enacted?  What was the intent of zoning and what were the problems being addressed?  Prior to zoning regulations, what means of protection were available and why was zoning the preferred approach?  My hope is that armed with this information one can better see how current actions intended to increase the supply of housing may be misguided and counterproductive.

Since I’m no expert in the subject matter (just opinionated), I’ll turn to two experts in the field.  The first talk, “What Zoning Means,” is by Lawson Purdy.  Mr. Purdy is the President of the National Municipal League.  The second talk, “Ten Years of Zoning,” is by Edward M. Bassett.  Mr. Bassett is the President of the Zoning Commission of New York.  Let’s give them both a warm welcome.

WHAT ZONING MEANS
By Lawson Purdy1

The term "zoning" has come to be used to mean the regulation of buildings in a city.  It signifies such regulation of the height , area, and use of buildings as will protect each landowner from the impairment of his share of light and access, as will protect his ears from unseemly noises, his nose from unpleasant smells, and his eyes from offensive sights.

Proper protection of the owner in these respects enhances the value of his land and conserves the value of his building.  Owners cannot have such protection for themselves without conceding the like protection for their neighbors.  Appropriate regulation demands such rules that no parcel of land in the city can be used in such fashion that all similar land could not be improved with buildings of like kind without disadvantage to each and all of them.  This is only common fairness , corporate equality.

Each street will accommodate a certain amount of traffic, pedestrian and vehicular.  Each lot of land on that street is entitled to its proportionate share of access along the street.  The welfare of each owner demands that no one owner shall make greater use of the street than the size of his lot entitles him to have.  There is a direct relation between the facilities afforded by the street for traffic and the light and air furnished by the street.  If the buildings are too high for the width of the street , light is cut off, and, at the same time, traffic is congested.

In every city there is a tendency for business and industries of like kind to group together.  This is for their own good.  If a manufacturing industry is intruded into a business or residential neighborhood, it impairs the value of all the surrounding property.  There has been annually in the United States a greater destruction of the value of buildings by the failure to protect them from the improper use of neighboring buildings than is caused by fire.  One manufactory erected on a business block may easily destroy several million dollars' worth of neighboring buildings.  One garage on a residential block may destroy hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of residences.  High buildings have been erected that cut the rent roll of their neighbors in half.

Unfortunately, in every city some buildings are too high, cover too large a percentage of the lot, and are put to a wrong use.  Zoning must proceed on the basis of existing conditions.  Even the worst sections can be improved somewhat; some sections may be saved; new sections may be protected at the beginning of their development.  In general, buildings in new sections should never be allowed to be higher than the width of the street.  No building for human habitation in a new section should be allowed to cover more than 50 per cent of the land.  Single family dwellings may be protected by not being permitted to cover more than 30 per cent of the land.

Towers are not objectionable and may be unlimited in height if sufficiently restricted in area.  The New York ordinance permits a tower which does not cover more than 25 per cent of the lot and which observes certain other regulations.  As a general rule , a greater height may be permitted back of the building line so long as the same angle of light is maintained as is permitted on the street in question.  Thus, if a building is allowed to be one and one-half times as high as the street is wide, it may be built higher if set back from the building line.  For every foot of set-back it may ascend one and one- half feet.

Zoning, properly conceived and carried out, thus constitutes not only a definite recognition of equality in ownership, but an important protection of taxable values.

TEN YEARS OF ZONING
By Edward M. Bassett2

In 1916 the first zoning law in this country went into effect.  It was devised and adopted by Greater New York.  Since that time zoning has spread to more than five hundred municipalities of the United States.  Before 1916 in every city, including Greater New York, factories could be constructed in any residence or retail business district.  Noise, smoke , fumes and heavy trucking blighted the surrounding area.

Before 1916 a public garage or stable could locate next door to any home, apartment, or local store.  This was a particular hardship to the small homeowner who was striving to pay off an installment second mortgage and who all of a sudden saw the new garage or stable lessen the value of his home so that his equity was annihilated.  The new public garage or stable next to the established drug store or jewelry shop would drive away customers.  The good-will of the small storekeeper would be destroyed.

Before 1916 the striker could buy a strategic lot in a home neighborhood, obtain a permit for some injurious building and then sell out at a high price to the neighbors who had no other way of protecting themselves.  Before 1916 the out-of-place grocery could seize any residential corner, pushing its plate glass front out to the street line and cutting off the front lawns of the small homes already built.  If the grocer succeeded, a butcher and delicatessen shop pre-empted the other corners.  Then the neighborhood began to decline, having lost its distinctive residential character.

Before 1916 every detached house district was insecure.  In proportion as the attractiveness of such a locality increased, apartments came in.  The protection of E and F districts was unknown.  Families desiring to establish permanent private homes migrated to country districts in New Jersey, Westchester or Nassau County.

In some cases private restrictions retarded these invasions.  But private restrictions were seldom applied to protect business or apartment house districts or the home localities of people of small means.  Even in the highest class residential developments the restrictions would expire in fifteen or twenty years, after which the invasion would come with even greater speed.  Homes would be allowed to run down so that they could be destroyed without loss as soon as the private restrictions expired.  Every homeowner was compelled to start an injunction suit on the slightest violation of the restrictions, otherwise the courts would say that the restrictions had been allowed to lapse.  The zoning regulations, however, are permanent until the property owners themselves petition to change them.  The building departments of the boroughs enforce them by refusing permits for non-conforming buildings or uses.

Before 1916 skyscrapers could cover the entire lot and extend to any height desired.  Enormous cornices would further darken the canyon streets.  No law required the division of light and air with one's neighbors, but the first skyscraper appropriated all there was.  The zoning resolution began the new era of skyscraper architecture-pyramid buildings instead of buildings like packing boxes set on end.  The new type of high buildings has already become a predominating feature of uptown Manhattan.  Streets are lighter and more attractive.

The first ten years of zoning in this city have established its usefulness.  The next ten years should make it a better instrument to prevent congestion.

IN CLOSING

I hope you found this trip back in time interesting.  So very often we hear about a given law or regulatory process that creates a problem, and the knee jerk reaction is to throw it all out and start over.  Little effort is made to understand the reasons why the original program was adopted, or how many elements of the program could be improved via minor modification.

No program is perfect, but the massive upzoning now underway (via community plans and state bonus density) is severely disrupting our communities in the very ways that zoning was enacted to avoid.  And I doubt we want to, or could, return to an era in which allowable building was dictated through deed restrictions.  Such an unlevel playing field resulted in racial covenants, a practice that belongs on the scrap heap of history.  Only through fair, equitable, and practical zoning can we avoid the major disruptions now occuring and build better communities for all.

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

"The Urban Design and Preservation Committee (UDP) is Silver Lake’s land use committee.  The name UDP was devised in 2009 when the committee started as we do more than review land use issues: we do our best to holistically look out for the urban design and architectural preservation of our community.  UDP coordinates, advises, develops alternative suggestions and provides a voice for the community with regards to Urban Planning, Design, Development, and Preservation issues within Silver Lake." 

The UDP met to discuss the Conditional Use permit for the legacy nightclub Akbar, located at the intersection of Sunset Blvd and Fountain Ave.  The owners gave a most interesting and heart-felt presentation as to the various steps and actions they take to ensure that their patrons have a safe time.  They talked about the extensive training provided to all employees and the various security systems in place to monitor the surroundings.  I was impressed and they received a unanimous vote of support.

Following the vote, most of the public left and it was just the Committee members, one member of the public, and me.  I was invited by UDP co-chair Carol Cetrone to talk about the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety building demolition notification process.  Or, I should say, talk about what's wrong with the process and how it can be improved.  Carol saw my recent Substack post about this issue (text version or audio version) and reached out.

Since she asked me to provide a brief talk, I figured it would be 10 minutes for a formal presentation followed by a few questions and answers.  Instead, the talk quickly became very interactive and ran for 40 minutes or more.  Unlike a City Council meeting where you are given a minute to voice your comments and no one pays attention, the UDP committee members were very interested in what I had to say.  They really demonstrated their appreciation by being so engaged.

I had a great time.  It was fun getting back into the practice of pulling together a brief presentation and creating a PowerPoint handout.  While a blog post lets you ramble on and on, a PowerPoint presentation forces you to really organize your thoughts and distill everything down to a few bullet points. 

I urge you to check out my PowerPoint pdf presentation posted below. While based on my prior Substack post, it contains some new material. Also bear in mind that the solutions I present are possible or potential ideas, they are not absolutes. The lack of transparency in the City’s process limits the ability for anyone outside the system to propose an exact solution. At best, one can only point out the symptoms and hope that some official will one day step up and implement a cure. Is there a doctor in the house? As always, I welcome your feedback and comment.

Demo Notification Process

810KB ∙ PDF file

Download

PowerPoint presentation to the Silver Lake Urban Design and Preservation Committee on June 12, 2024

Download

The Silver Lake UDP holds their meeting every 2nd Wednesday of the month in the Recreation Center.  Please check out the Silver Lake NC website for agenda and info about other committees.  Or, if you live outside the area, then check online for your local neighborhood council.  Most meetings are open to the public and they really deserve everyone's support.

Leave a comment

Subscribe now